STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/21/A/328/2024 HERO MOTOCORP LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - THE GRAND PLAZA, PLOT NO. 2, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI, PIN-110070 ,ODISHA.

SRI SHAYAM MOTORS PRESENT ADDRESS - NH-6, PANCHHAGACHIA, BARAIPALI ,ODISHA.

SRI RAM CITY UNION FINANCE PRESENT ADDRESS - KALINGA PLAZA, BARAIPALI, SAMBALPUR ,ODISHA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus NARATHAM BHAENA PRESENT ADDRESS - TALABHATAPADA, P.O. KHETRAJPUR, P.S. KHETRAJPUR, SAMBALPUR - 768003 ,ODISHA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. DILIP KUMAR MOHAPATRA. , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SUDHIRALAXMI PATTNAIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO DATED: 07/07/2025

ORDER

This appeal has been filed on 15.05.2024 challenging the impugned order dated

25.04.2023. The office has pointed out the delay of 340 days in filing the appeal. The office has also pointed out that the statutory amount of Rs.54,050.00 has not been deposited by the appellant. The certified copy of impugned order has not been filed.

This commission on 20.02.2025, 13.03.2025, 17.04.2015 and 03.06.2025 allowed time to the appellant to remove the defects. On 29.05.2025 notice was issued to the appellant for removal of defects. The office has furnished a report on 04.07.2025 that the S.R.is notback. In the meantime, 30 days has been elapsed. Hence, the notice issued to appellant is held to be sufficient. In spite of repeated call, the appellant is absent.

Perused the records. Till date, the statutory amount Rs.54,050.00 has not been deposited by the appellant. As per Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the statutory amount is required to be deposited at the time of filing of appeal.

As per office note, there is delay of 340 days in filing the appeal. We find, the appellant has not shown sufficient ground to condone the delay. The ground taken in paragraph 4 and 5 of theapplication for condonation of delay are not valid ground to condone the delay of 340 days in filling the appeal. Each day of delay has not been explained.

The special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Commission entertain highly belated petitions.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of EshaBhattacharjee vs Mg. Commit.

ofRaghunathpurNafar in civil Appeal No. 8183 – 8184 of 2013 while considering the application for condonation of delay vide order dt 13.09.2013 has held as follows :

22. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that the persons who are nominated or inducted as members or chosen as Secretaries of the managing committees of schools are required to behave with responsibility and not to adopt a casual approach. It is a public responsibility and anyone who is desirous of taking such responsibility has to devote time and act with due care and requisite caution. Becoming a member of the committee should not become a local status syndrome. A statutory committee cannot remain totally indifferent to an order passed by the court and sleep like “Kumbhakarna”. The persons chosen to act on behalf of the Managing Committee cannot take recourse to fancy and rise like a phoenix and move the court. Neither leisure nor pleasure has any room while one moves an application seeking condonation of delay of almost seven years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice. Plea of lack of knowledge in the present case really lacks bona fide. The Division Bench of the High Court has failed to keep itself alive to the concept of exercise of judicial discretion that is governed by rules of reason and justice. It should have kept itself alive to the following passage from N. Balakrishnan (supra): -

“The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up ne