M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

ORDER SHEET APPEAL NO. 871/2024 SMT. MEERA W/O LATE PREMSINGH VS.

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

HYBRID HEARING

11.2.2026 Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for appellant Shri Sarjan Singh, learned counsel for respondent.

Heard on I.A.-1, application, dated 5.4.2024, filed by appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

The delay is of 4 months and 17 days.

2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to ‘complainant’), was absent at the time of final hearing of complaint case No. 954/202, in which order has been passed on 16.10.2023 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) and impugned order was also not communicated to her. Thereafter, when the complainant visited the District Commisson, no satisfactory response was given to her and later she came to know that an order had already been passed in the matter. She received certified copy of the impugned order on 7.3.2024. Thereafter, in filing the appeal, delay of 4 months and 17 days caused. Learned counsel therefore, submits that the complainant was not aware of passing of the impugned order, due to which the delay occurred in filing the appeal and prays that the same be condoned and the matter be heard on merits.

3. Respondent/Insurance Company, in its reply to I.A.-1, delay application, submitted that there is about 5 months delay in filing the appeal, whereas as per rule the same should be filed within 45 days from the passing of such orders. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the appellant has failed to explain or show any sufficient cause that led to the delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prays that the delay application be rejected and the appeal be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

4. Ongoing through the impugned order, I find that though the complainant was not present at the time of final hearing but her husband Shri B.C. Mishra was present. The arguments were heard and impugned order was passed. The copy of the order was also collected by Shri B.C. Mishra on 13.10.2023, which is evident from order sheet of the record of the District Commisson.

5. Therefore, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration of application I.A.-1, for condonation of delay, I am of a view that the reason assigned for the delay of 4 months and 17 days, is not at all satisfactory, considering the facts of the case.

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.

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), I 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, I