STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/22/481 PARSHURAM GRIH NIR. SAH. SANSTHA PRESENT ADDRESS - OFFICE UPAYUKT, SAHAKARITA, DIST INDORE. SHRAM SHIVAR, JAIL ROAD, INDORE. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus LAXMI DEVI PRESENT ADDRESS - 41 SANVID NAGAR, INDORE. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

PARSHURAM GRIH NIR. SAH. SANSTHA, SH.PARAG KALE (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

LAXMI DEVI DATED: 17/11/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2022 (Arising out of order dated 15.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.524/2012 by District Commission, Indore-2)

PARSHURAM GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT, INDORE. … APPELLANT Versus LAXMI DEVI W/O SHRI VALLABH MALVIYA. … RESPONDENT.

BEFORE:

HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : PRESIDING MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:

Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed On 17.11.2025)

As per Dr. Monika Malik:

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA-1, an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

2. This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-Parshuram Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore (for short 'society') arises out of the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-2 (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.524/2012 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent directing the opposite party/appellant- society to execute registered sale-deed of the questioned house within two months failing which it is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of order till the date of execution of registered sale-deed. Additionaly, compesation of Rs.5,000/-

with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded.

3. As per office report, this appeal is barred by 3 years 5 months however, from the record I find that the appeal against the order dated 15.11.2016 has been filed on 22.06.2022 i.e. after more than five years. In IA-1, the application for condonation of delay dated 22.06.2022 reasons assigned are that the Administrator appointed in the matter came to know about the order on 25.04.2022 when the complainant filed a complaint before Deputy Commissioner, Co-operative, District-Indore. Thereafter he filed an application on 12.05.2022 before the District Commission to get certified copy of the impugned order which he received on 31.05.2022 and thereafter the appeal was filed on

22.06.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no malafide intention in filing the appeal belated. The appellant has shown reasons for the delay caused in application for condonation of delay. He also argued that the delay occured due to lack of knowledge of impugned order to the Administrator appointed in the matter. He thus argued that the delay for the period of 15.11.2016 to 25.04.2022 deserves to be ignored as the same is bonafide. He prayed for allowing the application for condonation of delay.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that there is inordinate delay of more than 5 years in filing the present appeal. He argued that the reasons assigned in the application are baseless as also the application is not supported by any affidavit. He further argued that no satisfactory reasons were given for condonation of delay and therefore prayed for dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay I am of a view that the reasons stated in the application are not sufficient to condone huge delay of more than 5 years. The application for condonation of delay is also not supported by affidavit. The Administrator appointed was expected to know regarding all the legal matters