State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nishit Gupta S/O. Arun Gupta vs Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. Through Its ... on 8 May, 2026
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
APPEAL NO. 587/2025
Nisheet Gupta
S/o Arun Gupta
R/o K-07, Vardhman Green Park,
Colony, Ashoka Garden
Bhopal (M.P.) ... Appellant
VERSUS.
Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Unit No.4, 1st floor Centrium
Phoenix Market City LBS Marg
Kurla West
Mumbai -4000 070
Through Director ... Respondent
BEFORE;
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
MS. RIMJHIM GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
SHRI PRATEEK GIRI GOSWAMI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.
ORDER
( 08.05.2026 ) The following order of the Bench was delivered by Hon'ble Member, Dr. Monika Malik.
This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant'), is directed against the order dated 14.5.2024, passed by the District Consumer : 2 : Disputes Redressal Commission No.2, Bhopal (for short 'District Commission'), in complaint case No. 61/2019.
2. Heard on I.A.-1, an application filed by the complainant, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 9 months and 20 days.
3. Learned counsel for complainant/appellant submitted that the complainant, who is her brother, received copy of the impugned order only on 23.9.2024. It is further stated that the complainant resides out of Bhopal and his wife (her sister-in- law) was pregnant. The complainant was busy looking after her, therefore, he could not contact his counsel. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and she prayed that the same be condoned and the matter be heard on merits.
4. Learned counsel for respondent filed written reply and opposed the application-I.A.-1 and argued that the reasons assigned for the inordinate delay of 9 months and 20 days, are not satisfactory. No day-to-day explanation for delay has been produced. No medical records, travel documents, correspondence with counsel or any other evidence showing 'sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal on time are there. : 3 : Thus, the application is liable to be rejected. He prayed that the appeal be also dismissed on the ground of limitation.
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 9 months and 20 days, is not at all satisfactory. The complaint was filed by complainant, he was well aware of pendency of the same and he was represented by an advocate, who was present at the time of final hearing of the matter also. Thus, it was the duty of the complainant to pursue the complaint filed by him diligently. The appellant was not diligent in pursuing the complaint filed by him. Thus, we are of the view that the ground taken by the complainant that since he is residing out of Bhopal and was not aware of passing of the impugned order, is not a satisfactory ground to condone an inordinate delay of 9 months and 20 days. Also on perusal of the order sheets of record of the District Commission, we find that certain documents were received by Advocate Rimjhim Gupta on 6.5.2024, i.e. the date of final hearing of the case, which establishes her presence on said date. Thus, explanation offered by learned counsel for : 4 : the complainant/appellant is unbelievable in order to allow I.A.- 1 and to condone the delay.
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 prescribed period of limitation.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in Anshul vs. New Okhala Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has clearly held that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters.
: 5 :
8. On going through the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal (supra), we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated, if Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against orders of Consumer Fora. The Hon'ble National Commission in FA/1678/2019 (Parsvnath Developers limited vs. Arun Kumar Bansal) decided on 12th July, 2024, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal (supra) has taken same view.
9. Therefore, we do not find the explanation believable, reasonable and satisfactory to condone the said inordinate delay of 9 months and 20 days, in filing the appeal. Delay cannot be condoned unless there are sufficient, convincing and cogent reasons for the same.
10. Hence the application I.A.-1, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected.
11. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed, as barred by limitation in limine, with no order as to costs.
(JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Mercy