STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. SC/27/MA/205/2024 IN SC/27/A/24/400 MX INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - SHOP NO 1 ANAND APARTMENTS DUTTAPADA ROAD BORIVALI EAST MUMBAI 400066,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus VARSHA GYANDEV DHURI PRESENT ADDRESS - SANGHMITRA SOCIETY PLOT NO 95B1 GORAI BORIVALI WEST MUMBAI 400091,MAHARASHTRA.

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 16 AND 17 FLOOR COMMEREZ INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK OBEROI GARDEN CITY GOREGAON E MUMBAI 400063,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. TAVADE , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. VIJAY C. PREMCHANDANI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

.

DATED: 20/03/2026

ORDER

1. The present appeal is filed along with delay condonation application against the impugned order dated 21/02/2024 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban at Bandra in consumer complaint no.CC/71/2017.

2. The applicant/appellant has contended in the application that the respondent had filed a consumer complaint against the appellant seeking direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,47,971/- to the respondent. The Ld.District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban at Bandra passed an impugned order as on 21/02/2024. The applicant obtained the certified copy as on 05/06/2024. The applicant was supposed to file an appeal on or before 19/07/2024. The applicant had no knowledge about the prescribed period of limitation for filing the appeal. The applicant/appellant engaged an advocate for filing an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and handed over the relevant papers to his advocate. After handing over the papers and instructions, the advocate informed him that there is provision of prescribed period for filing an appeal. The advocate took the time to prepare an application and appeal memo, thereby caused delay in filing the present appeal. The appeal is filed with a delay application. If the same is condoned, there will not be irreparable loss to the respondent, hence prayed that the application for condonation of delay of 8 days for filing the appeal be condoned in the interest of justice.

3. The notice was issued to the respondents on delay condonation application. The respondent no.1 appeared and filed her reply on delay condonation application. It is contended in the reply that due to deficiency of services given by the present appellant, respondent/complainant is suffering from mental agony since from 7 years. It is further contended that the appellant has mentioned that appellant was not given any opportunity for argument, whereas the appellant has filed his Witten Statement in the original complaint. The said fact has been admitted by filing the copy of the same along with the appeal memo. The appellant continuously remained absent before the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban. Therefore, the contention raised in the appeal is false and fabricated. The appellant has not complied the order passed in the original consumer complaint. The appellant has also delayed in depositing 50% amount of compensation, while preferring an appeal. It is contended that there is no sufficient cause shown for condoning the delay. Hence prayed that the delay condonation application may be rejected with cost.

4. Perused the application, documents along with an application as well as reply of the respondent. After hearing both the sides, we come to the conclusion that the following order should be passed as reasoned below:-

REASONING:

5. The appellant has contended in the delay condonation application that delay is caused as they were not aware about the limitation period for filing the appeal against the impugned order. It is contended in the application that after obtaining certified copy, they consulted their advocate at Borivali and after discussing the future course with advocate, the appellant decided to challenge the impugned order before this Hon’ble Commission.

6. From perusal of the