##PAGE1##

M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1858/2025

Parmeet Singh

S/o Gurucharan Singh

R/o Ambikapur Road,

Manendragarh, District Koria

Chhatisgarh – 497 442 ... Appellant

VERSUS.

1. General Manager

General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.

Registered Office Address

Chandrapura Industrial Estate,

Halol

District Panchmahal

Gujarat – 389 351

2. Proprietor

M/s Oriental Motors

Showroom address –

Opposite Shriram College

Katangi Bypass Road

Jabalpur (M.P.) -482 002

3. Proprietor

M/s Swasti Ventrues Service Centre

Address – Old High Court Road

District Bilaspur

Chhatigarh – 495 001

BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI GAURAV MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

: 2 :

O R D E R

( 29.01.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter

referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated

23.10.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission No.1, Jabalpur (for short

‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 02T/2018.

2. Heard on I.A.-1, an application, dated 10.11.2025,

filed by appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the

appeal. The delay is of 11 months and 1 day.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the

counsel for appellant, who appeared for him before the District

Commission, despite obtaining the copy of impugned order,

neither informed about the same nor the case file was returned

to him. Whenever the appellant tried to get information about

the case he avoided it on one pretext or another. Since the

appellant was residing in Chhatisgarh, it was very difficult for

him to come to Jabalpur and personally contact his advocate.

When the appellant came to Jabalpur on 27.10.2023 for a

family function, he contacted the office of District Commission

: 3 :

and obtained copy of the impugned order on 30.10.2025. Then

he preferred the appeal in which the delay of 11 months and 1

day occurred. Learned counsel therefore prays that the delay

in filing the appeal be condoned and the matter be heard on

merits.

4. After hearing learned counsel for appellant and on due

consideration of application I.A.-1, for condonation of delay,

we are of the view that the reason assigned for the inordinate

delay of 11 months and 1 day is not at all satisfactory. The

complainant was not diligent in pursuing the complaint before

the District Commission. In I.A.-1, there is no day-to-day

explanation for delay.

5. Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is

relevant to mention here, wherein it has been mentioned that

in case any party is aggrieved by the order passed by the

District Commission, the appeal can be filed against the said

order to the State Commission within a period of 45 days from

the date of order. Further it has been mentioned that the

State Commission may entertain an appeal after expiry of

period of 45 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient

cause for not filing the same within the period of limitation.

: 4 :

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of in Anshul

vs. New Okhala Industrial Development Authority IV

(2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has clearly held that while deciding the

application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in

mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed

under the Consumer Protection Act for filing appeals and

revisions in consumer matters.

7. On going through the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court

in Anshul Aggarwal (supra), we find that the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held that object of expeditious adjudication of

consumer disputes will get defeated, if Court was to entertain

highly belated petitions filed against orders of Consumer Fora.

The Hon’ble National Commission in FA/1678/2019

(Parsvnath Developers limited vs. Arun Kumar Bansal)

decided on 12^th July, 2024, following the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal (supra) has

taken same view.

8. Therefore, we do not