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

ORDER SHEET APPEAL NO. 167/2026 RAJENDRA PATEL S/O LATE HARI PRASAD PATEL VS.

MANDIRA MUKHERJEE W/O TAPOVRAT MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS HYBRID HEARING

13.2.2026 Shri Kuldeep Acharya, learned counsel for appellant Shri Shivam Singh, learned counsel appears for respondents voluntarily, as no notice of this appeal has been issued yet.

2. Heard on I.A.-1, an application filed by appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 3 years 2 months and 27 days.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that during Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant’s counsel expired on 30.4.2021 and after that he could not receive complete or accurate information regarding the status and progress of the case because the appellant was entirely dependent upon his counsel for all legal proceedings. It is submitted that the appellant came to know about the impugned order dated 13.9.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisson No.1, Jabalpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case No. 636/2015, on receipt of notice of execution case on 15.9.2025. He thereafter applied for and obtained certified copy of the impugned order on 17.11.2025 and filed a Revision Petition No.1618/25 before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which was withdrawn by the appellant on 9.1.2026, with liberty to file appeal before appropriate forum. Thereafter the appeal was filed before the Commission, in which said delay of 3 years 2 months and 27 days occurred.

4. Learned counsel further submits that that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to bonafide, unavoidable and compelling circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. He thus prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the matter be heard on merits. Learned counsel referred judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.P.Srivastava vs. Shri R.K. Raizada and others, (2000) AIT (SCW) 887, National Securities Depository Ltd. vs. Vimal Mittal (2005) 13 SCC 97, Mahesh Builders vs. Sacheeta Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. (2010)14 SCC 784, ARN Infrastructure India Limited vs. Hara Prasad Ghosh (2023) 3 ACJ 556, Hemlata Verma vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2019) 5 AIIWC 4704, M/s Singal Udyog vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (2020) 1 ApexCourtJudgments (SC) 308 and judgments of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Dariya S/o Sh. Rishal Singh vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. in Revision Petition No. 1286 of 2012, decided on 10.11.2021 and Rahul Sharma vs. Dremz and Aspitratons in Revision Petition No. 893/2022 decided on

3.8.2022 to support his arguments.

5. Learned counsel for respondents argued that there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate of delay of 3 years 2 months and 27 days in filing the appeal. Therefore I.A.-1, application for condonation of delay be rejected and the appeal be dismissed, on the ground of limitation.

6. After hearing learned counsel for appellant and on due consideration of application I.A.-1, for condonation of delay, I am of a view that the reason assigned for the inordinate delay of 3 years 2 months and 27 days is not at all satisfactory. In I.A.-1, there is no day-to-day explanation for delay.

7. 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.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas