Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, MEMBER
SOUMEN CHAKRABORTY – Appellant
Versus
PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of the appeal process under consumer protection act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of lack of awareness by the appellant and the adequacy of service. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. issues regarding the grounds for delay in filing the appeal. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. importance of offering a plausible explanation for delay. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. final decision on dismissing the appeal. (Para 13 , 14) |
1. This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act , 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 30.10.2017 of the State Commission in complaint no. 106 of 2016.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the developer (the appellant herein) and the complainant in person (the respondent herein). We have also perused the material on record, including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 30.10.2017, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the memorandum of appeal.
3. The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 455 days. We see that the grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay are, one, that the developer was not aware of the Order of the State Commission as it was passed ex parte against it and it
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
