STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA MISC. APPLICATION NO. SC/27/MA/22/470 IN APPEAL NO.SC/27/A/22/1018 (Arisen out of Order dated 30/12/2020 passed by Ld. Addl. Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Consumer Complaint No.CC/90/2019)

Paritosh Sudhir Pungaliya Suman Sudhir Pungaliaya Both presently residing at:

A-102, Ruby Park, Park Street, ….Applicants/Appellants Wakad, Pune – 411057. (Org. Opp. Party Nos.2(1) & 2(2)

Versus Rakesh Hari More Residing at: Adarsh Colony, Tingrenagar, Road No.5, ….Respondent/

Pune – 411005. (Org. Complainant)

BEFORE:

Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Presiding Member Hon’ble Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member APPEARANCE :

For Applicants/Appellants : Adv. Ranjan Dwivedi For Respondent : Adv. Sandesh Ambavkar.

Order on delay condonation application (Dated 18/02/2026)

Per: Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member

1. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Applicants/Appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal against the final order dated 30.12.2020 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune, in Consumer Complaint No. 90 of 2019.

It is submitted by the Applicant that the impugned order was passed

2.

ex-parte and that the Applicants could not receive the free certified copy of the

said order within time. According to the Applicants, the period of limitation was

adversely affected due to the Covid-19 pandemic, lockdown restrictions, and

closure of offices, which resulted in difficulty in accessing records and documents required for filing the Appeal.

3. The Applicants have further stated that upon becoming aware of the impugned order, they applied for certified copies for the purpose of filing the Appeal. It is contended that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond their control and that there was no intentional, deliberate, or wilful negligence on their part.

4. It is further averred that the delay deserves to be condoned in view of the extension of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the Covid- 19 period and that the Appeal involves arguable issues which require consideration on merits. The Applicants submit that refusal to condone the delay would result in grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice.

5. On these grounds, the Applicants have prayed that the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal be condoned in the interest of justice and that the Appeal be heard and decided on merits.

6. The Respondent had strongly opposed the Application contending that the delay is inordinate and not satisfactorily explained and the Applicants were negligent and inactive. Hence, limitation cannot be condoned as a matter of routine.

7. The Respondent contended that the Applicants have failed to disclose any specific dates, steps taken, or bona fide efforts explaining the delay and have merely made bald and general averments. It is argued that vague references to Covid-19 or administrative difficulties cannot by themselves constitute “sufficient cause” unless supported by concrete facts and due diligence. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Sridevi Vs. Union of india ,(2021) 5 SCC 321 wherein it is held that –

The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. (Para 24).

Thus, it is evident that the term sufficient cause is relative, fact dependent, and has many hues, largely deriving colour from the facts of each case, and the behaviour of the litigant who seeks condonation of delay (in approaching the court). However, what can broadly be said to be universally accepted is that in principle, the applicant must display bona tides, should not have been