STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/FA/120/2025 (Against the Order dated 30th November 2023 in Complaint No. DC/484/CC/91/2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur)

WITH SC/CB2/27/IA/84/2025 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)

SC/CB2/27/IA/83/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

REVYUR BEAUTY CARE PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR SHARMILA FAJI ALI PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. SHANTI NAGAR, UNIVERSAL CHOWK, NAGPURNAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SHRI. VIVEK BABURAO BALPANDE PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. PLOT NO.A-76, SHANTINAGAR COLONY, NEAR EDAN POINT SCHOOL, NAGPURNAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

ADV. SURABHI GODBOLE FOR THE APPLICANT.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

ADV. BARAPATRE FOR THE NON APPLICANT.

DATED: 06/03/2026

ORDER

(Delivered on 06/03/2026)

PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON’BLE MEMBER

1. This is an application filed by the Applicant/Original opposite party seeking condonation of delay of 546 days in filing the Appeal against the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur. After filling of the present application notice was issued to the Non-Applicant/original complainant. Non-applicant appeared and filed reply to this application.

2. It is the case of the Applicant that the impugned order dated 30/11/2023 in CC/91/2023 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur was passed against the applicant. The Applicant submitted that the statutory period for filing the appeal expired on 14/01/2024.Applicant submitted that the delay occurred due to the fact that the matter already amicably settled between the parties on 09.12.2020, on account of which the Applicant bona fide believed that no further proceedings would be initiated. It was further contended that the matter before the District Commission proceeded ex-parte as the summons were not brought to the Applicant’s notice due to negligence of office staff. The learned Advocate for the applicant also submitted that, the knowledge of the impugned order was received only upon initiation of execution proceedings. The learned Advocate further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but bona fide and therefore deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. For the submissions applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anantnag & Anr. V.

Mst Katiji& Ors( 1987) 2 SCC 107.

3. On the other side the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Non-Applicant opposed the Application and submitted that the delay of 546 days is gross and inordinate. It was argued that the order passed on 30.11.2023 and free copy issued on 11.03.2024. However applicant failed to filed within limitation. Learned Advocate for the non applicant denied the ground of amicable settlement between the parties for delay. The applicant ought to have performed his obligations as agreed between the parties as per the transaction. The grounds of alleged settlement and internal office negligence were denied as no valid ground , unsatisfactory, and legally untenable. It was further contended that internal mismanagement cannot constitute sufficient cause.The Respondent relied upon the following judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court :

i. Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,(2011)14 Supreme Court 578, And others are ii. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashvin Kumar, IV (2023)

CPJ 305 (Uttarakhand State Consumer Commission)

iii. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd., I(2025)CPJ 49 of New Delhi State Consumer Commission , 4. We heard Miss Surabhi Godbole learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri Barapatre learned Advocate for the non-applicant. We have carefully gone through the application and reply. We find that the explanation offered by the Applicant regarding amicable settlement and staff negligence is general a