Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 7717
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Kalyani S. Kapse, PM, Shaila D. Wandhare, M
Shri Govinda Developers and Infrastructures Pvt ltd, Mahendra Tulshiram Gawai – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Mahanand Damodhar Arakh – Respondent
First Appeal | A/21/14
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. Samdekar
For the Respondents: Adv. Swati Paunikar
Delay in filing appeal rejected due to insufficient justification under the Consumer Protection Act timelines.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Appeal against an order by the Consumer Forum - Application for condonation of delay rejected due to lack of sufficient reasons for a delay of 216 days - The court determined the delay counted and found that it should not be condoned. (Paras 1, 6, 10)
(B) Procedural Requirements - Filings and timelines - The complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had a period of limitation and the time for appeal was carefully considered by the court. (Paras 7, 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after a significant delay, attributed to being incarcerated but lacking substantive justification for the delay cited.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the appeal timeline and concluded there were no valid reasons to condone the delay.
Issues: The main issue examined was whether the failure to file the appeal in a timely manner could be justified under the circumstances presented by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the reasons for the delay were not sufficiently substantiated and hence, rejected the application for condonation of delay.
Result: Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consideration of appeal timelines. (Para 1 , 4 , 8) |
| 2. court's rationale for denying delay condonation. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. final decision on the appeal. (Para 10) |
HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI S. KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER PRESENT: Adv. Samdekar for the appellant Adv. Swati Paunikar for the respondent.
Dated : 28 Jan. 2025 Final Order / Judgement (Delivered on 28/01/2025)
Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. Appellant /original opposite party namely – Shri Govinda Developers and Shri Mahendra Gawai has preferred the present appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 against the impugned order dated 29/06/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur, in Consumer Complaint No. RBT/CC/18/184.
Applicant has filed application for condonation of delay of 23 days
2. After filing of the appeal, notice was served and non applicant filed the reply.
3. Applicant No. 2- Shri Mahendra Gawai has filed affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay on 30/06/2022 and submitted that the affidavit may be considered as part and parcel of the application.
4. We have heard Mr. Samdekar, learned advocate for the applicant. He submitted that the applicant at the relevant time was in Jail and counsel informed him about the proceedings and apply for the certificate copy and the same was received on 20/11/2020 and consequently, appeal filed on
13/01/2021. Hence, there is delay of 23 days.
5. Notice was served to the respondent/non applicant . Non applicant appeared and filed its reply to the application for condonation of delay and thereby strongly opposed the application and submitted that nowhere specific date s are mentioned in the application and nor proper reasons are cited for the delay.
6. Mrs. Swati Paunikar, learned advocate for the non applicant specifically draws our attention that on receipt of certified copy of order on 06/07/2019, notice was issued to the applicant by the respondent on 15/07/2019 calling thereby for compliance of order which is not claimed by them on 18/07/2019. Thereafter the period of limitation for filing the appeal will start from 18/07/2019 and will end on 18/08/2019. The appeal came to be filed in the month of December-2020, the delay is about 176 days in filing the appeal which cannot be condoned only for the interest of justice.
7. We have carefully gone through the application for condonation of delay as well as reply filed on it. We have observed that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 29/06/2019 in complaint case No. RBT/CC/18/184 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur. The certified copy was received on 06/07/2019. The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 and hence, the appeal should be filed under old Act. Hence, period of limitation is of 30 days. The period of limitation ends on 06/08/2019 and appeal came to be filed on 28/12/2020.
8. We are of considered view that the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 is to be exempted as per the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020.
9. In the instant application period of delay is counted from 06/08/2019 to 15/03/2020. Hence, the total delay caused is 216 days without citing any reason and delay should not be explained properly in spite the applicant received the certified copy on 06/07/2019.
10. In the light of above submissions, we are not inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay of 216 days. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
i. The application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
ii. Consequently, the appeal stand disposed off.
