Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6071
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sri. B. Sudheendra Kumar, PRESIDENT, Sri. Ajith Kumar D., JUDICIAL MEMBER, Sri. RadhaKrishnan K.R., MEMBER
Ansar – Appellant
Versus
HDFC Bank Ltd – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/474/2024 | I.A. No. 1006/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. S. Madhu
For the Respondents:
Delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned without sufficient reasons, demonstrating due diligence.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Delay in filing appeal - Application for condonation of delay of 390 days dismissed due to insufficient reasons provided by petitioners. The court observed that gross negligence and lack of diligence were evident. Findings indicate that personal issues of the petitioners did not justify the delay. (Paras 3-5)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay citing the first petitioner's physical condition and the personal health issue of their counsel as reasons for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The reasons provided by the petitioners were deemed insufficient to condone the delay, resulting in dismissal of the application.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal were sufficient under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that lack of due diligence and gross negligence on part of the petitioners did not warrant the condonation of the substantial delay in filing the appeal.
Result: Application dismissed, appeal stands dismissed as time barred.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for condonation of delay in appeal filed. (Para 1) |
| 2. insufficient reasons for delay, evidencing negligence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT This is an application praying for condoning the delay of 390 days in filing the appeal.
2. Heard. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the application.
3. It is contended that the first petitioner is a resident of Wayanad and due to his physical condition, he was not able to contact his counsel at Thiruvananthapuram on time. Moreover, the counsel who was engaged by the first petitioner was also suffering from Aorta Problem. In the said circumstances, there occurred a delay of 390 days in filing the appeal.
4. The second petitioner is a company represented by its Manager. It is not discernible as to why the second petitioner could not file the appeal on time.
5. Having gone through the reasons stated by the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the petitioners are not sufficient to condone the delay of 390 days in filing the appeal. That apart, there was gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioners in this regard. In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay.
In the result, this application stands dismissed. JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER jb KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 474/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 30.06.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 02/2018 of DCDRC, Wayanad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANTS:
1. Ansar, S/o Abdulla, Aniyarath House, Arivaramkunnu, Kambalakkad P.O., Kaniyampettah Village, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad.
2. A.S. Trading Company, Room No. II, Niksha Lakash Complex, Kaikeri Village, Virajapet Taluk, Kodagu, Karnataka (reprersented by its Manager).
(By Adv. S. Madhu)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
1. The Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Kalpetta Branch, represented by its Manager.
th
2. H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Credit Card Division, 4 Floor, S.L. Plaza, Palarivattom, Kochi-25.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 1006/2024, this appeal stands dismissed as time barred.
