Condonation of delay in consumer appeals requires sufficient and cogent reasons; inordinate delays cannot be condoned based on a lack of diligence or general pleas of absence, as it defeats the purpose of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes.

O R D E R

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Hon’ble Member, Dr. Monika Malik.

2. This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated 9.9.2024, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Katni (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 74/2018.

3. Heard on I.A.-1, an application filed by the complainant, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 1 year 1 month and 22 days.

4. Learned counsel for complainant/appellant submitted that the complainant had no knowledge of impugned order passed on 9.9.2024, as she was working abroad and she came to know about it on 10.11.2025, when she returned to her home town Katni. Thereafter on the next day i.e. 11.11.2025 she applied for certified copy of the impugned order and the same was provided to her on 17.11.2025. It is submitted that from the date of receipt of copy of impugned order by the complainant on 17.11.2025, appeal was filed within limitation, however, from the date of impugned order the appeal is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the complainant’s advocate was also not regular before the District Commission and she be not made to suffer due to his act of negligence. The Learned counsel therefore submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and prayed that the same be condoned and the matter be heard on merits.

5. After hearing learned counsel for appellant and on due consideration of application I.A.-1, for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the reason assigned for the inordinate delay of 1 year 1 month and 22 days, is not at all satisfactory. The appellant was not diligent in pursuing the complaint filed by her. Since the complaint was filed by complainant, she was well aware of pendency of the same and she was represented by an advocate, Shri Monesh Sahu, before the District Commission. who appeared for complainant uptill 16.11.2021 and thereafter he did not appear. It was the duty of the complainant to make sure that the complaint filed by her be pursued properly and she ought to have made arrangement for the same. Though in the impugned order it is mentioned that complainant was represented by Shri Monesh Sahu, in fact, from the order sheets of the District Commission it is clear that none appeared for complainant at the time of final hearing of the complaint case. Nothing about her advocate is mentioned in I.A.-1. Thus, we are of the view that the ground taken by the complainant that since she was working abroad, therefore, she was not aware of passing of the impugned order, is not a satisfactory ground to condone an inordinate delay of 1 year 1 month and 22 days.

6. 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.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of in Anshul vs. New Okhala Industrial