Vijesh Dayaldas Narwani vs Lok Housing & Consturction Limited

The present Appeal, under Section ---51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 18.06.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.634 of 2018.

The impugned order was passed in the presence of the Appellant. The order was oral and therefore, the Appellant was very well aware of the order passed in his Complaint. Yet, the Appellant did not file the Appeal on time and the present Appeal has been filed with a delay of 444 days. Along with this Appeal, an application being IA No.7343 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. Arguments are heard on this application.

The Appellant, who is also the Complainant and whose Complaint has been partly allowed by the State Commission vide the impugned order, has submitted that he had not been able to file the Appeal on time since he had fallen sick in September 2019 and he was frequently visiting the Hospital and thereafter, the pandemic was declared.

We have perused the file. As per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the period of limitation for filing an Appeal is 30 days from the date of passing of the order. In this case, the impugned order was passed in the open court and it is an oral order and therefore, the Complainant/Appellant was aware of the entire order on the same day and the period of limitation can be said to have started since then. The Appellant had made no effort to obtain the certified copy.  There is no mention as to when he received the free copy of the impugned order by post, although, it is apparent that the Complaint had been allowed. As per the argument of the learned Counsel, it was in October 2019 that the Complainant decided to file the Appeal instead of the Execution Application. Since then, there are unexplained considerate delays. The treatment record does not show that the Appellant was totally physically incapable of moving around and thus unable to contact his Advocate or prepare for filing of the Appeal. The delay can be condoned only when the Applicant is able to show the reasonable grounds and the reasonable ground means the ground which prevented the Applicant from coming to the court or the reasons which were totally unavoidable and beyond his control. In the present case, the Appellant/Complainant has totally failed to show any reasonable ground for condonation of delay. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.