STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/21/FA/179/2025 (Against the Order dated 24th December 2024 in Complaint No. DC/346/CC/39/2024 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Baleshwar)

SRI RAMACHANDRA MALLIK PRESENT ADDRESS - BALABUDHIBALESHWAR,ODISHA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus THE BRANCH MANAGER HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - STATION SQUAREBALESHWAR,ODISHA.

THE M.D HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - AT- 27 GUINDY CHENNAPUDUKKOTTAI,TAMIL NADU.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

NEMO DATED: 02/01/2026

ORDER

None appears for the appellant.

The appeal was filed on 19.07.2025. On 23.07.2025 office directed the appellant to file postal requisites by 01.09.2025 but on 08.09.2025 the appellant was absent and not file postal requisites. Again on 23.09.2025 appellant was absent and not filed postal requisites. On 10.10.2025 appellant was absent and the case was posted to 23.10.2025. On

11.11.2025 appellant was absent. On 19.11.2025 last chance was given to appellant to file postal requisites and posted the case to 10.12.2025. On 10.12.2025 appellant was absent and not filed postal requisites. There is delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. Appellant could not file delay condonation petition till today. Appellant has not explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal.

While dealing with the application for condonation of delay arising out of a consumer complaint, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anshul Aggarwal-Vrs- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in IV (2012) CPJ (SC) has held as follows:-

1 , xx xx xx xx “Para-5 The averments contained in the above reproduced paragraphs show that within a fortnight of passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had become aware of the same. She instructed her counsel to prepare a draft of the case to be filed in this Court, but did not take steps necessary for filing the petition. She visited India in April 2011, but then too she did not bother to contact the counsel. The Petitioner’s assertion that she could not do so because she was suffering from viral fever has not been substantiated by any documents. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground much less justification for exercise of power by this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Para-6 It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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 Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.

Para-7 With the above observations, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the special leave petition is dismissed as barred by time”.

xx xx xx xx Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the application for condonation of delay in case of Office of the Chief Postmaster & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & another on 24.02.2012 reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506 has held as follows, xx xx xx xx “Para 13 In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be s