State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M.Nagendra Naidu vs Smt.A.S.Roopa on 19 February, 2026
Page 1 of 3
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Basava Bhavan, Sri Basaveswara Circle, High grounds, Bangalore-56000 t.
Appeal No. - I l9l / 20lE
Appellant/s
M.Nagendra Naidu
S/o A.Muniswamy Naidu,
Aged about 68 years,
r/a No.53/1, Pipe Line road,
Cholarapaly4
Next to Mary Martha church,
Y ij ay an agar, B angalore-560040
(By Shri/Smt K.B.Naveen Kumar )
-Versus-
Respondent/s
Smt.A.S.Roopa o A.K.Shashi, Aged about 39 years, r/a at Flat No.53, 2nd floor, No.53, Kuvempu Apartment, Pipeline road, Cholarapaly4 Next to Mary Manha church, Y ij ay arragar, Bangal ore-560040 & A.K.Shashi Vo K.R.Adhinarayana shetty, Aged about 47 years, r/a at Flat No.53, 2nd floor, No.53, Kuvempu Apartment, Pipeline road, Cholarapaly4 Next to Mary Martha church, Vij ayanagar, Bangalore-560040
2. Rahul Ramesh Kulkami S/o Ramesh Kulkami, Aged about 38 years, r/a at Flat No.G2, Ground floor, No.53, Kuvempu Apartrnent, Pipeline road, Chol arapaly4 Next to Mary Martha church, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560040
3. C.P.Deepa w/o M.Natesha, Aged about 39 years, r/a at Flat No.Fw, I st floor, No.53, Kuvempu Apartsnent, Pipeline road, Cholarapaly4 Next to Mary Martha church. Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560M0
4. Smt.Glorita w/o John Samuel, Aged about 40 years, r/a at Flat No.G3 & G4, Ground floor, No.53, Kuvempu Apartment, Pipeline road, Cholarapaly4 Next to Mary Martha church, Vij ayanagar, Bangalore-5 60040 http://kscdrcsrvftscdrc/filingandotherArea./order_sheetjrint.asp?cEse no:l l9l &casejear:201g&case 08-08-2018
5. Bhaghand Jain S/o \aralal Jain, Aged about 45 years, & Smt.Sapna Rank (Jain), w/o Bhagchand Jain, Aged about 37 years, Both are r/a at Flat No.S l, 2nd floor, No.53, Kuvempu Apartsnent, Pipeline road, Cholarapaly4 Next to Mary Manha church, Vij ayanagar, Banglore-560040
6. G.Raghavendra S,/o Late Ganapathy Rao, Aged about 45 years, & SmlManjula, Wo G.Raghavendr4 Aged about 52 yean, r/a at Flst No.Gl, Ground floor, No.53, Kuvempu Apartsnent, Pipeline road, Chol arapaly4 Next to Mary Martha church, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560040 7 K Ravi Vo M.Kasilingam, Aged about 38 years, r/a at Flat No.S4, 2nd floor, No.53, Kuvempu Apartment, Pipeline road, Chol arapaly4 Next to Mary Martha church, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560040
8. Smt.P.Latha o J.Sathya Prakash, Aged about 36 yean, r/a at FIat No.F3, lst floor, No.53, Kuvempu Apartment, Pipeline road, Cholarapaly4 Next to Mary Martha church, Vij ayanagar, Bangalore-560040
9. M.Santhosh Kumar s/o M.Shiva mahadev4 Aged about 33 years, r/a at Flat No.F4, lst flmr, No.53, Kuvempu Apafinent, Pipeline road, Chol arapaly4 Next to Mary Martha church, Vij ayanagar, Baagalore-560040 (By Shri/Smt ) ORDER SHEET Appeal received on 08/08/201E through Advocate K.B.Naveen Kumar This is an Appeal U/S 15 of C.P. Act, prefened against the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum Bangalore Urban tr addl. ol l3/ll/2017 in Comptaint No 1639/2013. Placed before Principal Bench / Additional Bench of the Commission on l4108/2018 at I I A.M. http://kscdrcsrv/kscdrdhlingandotherArea/order_sheetjrint.asp?case_no=tl9l&Casejear20l8&case...08-08-2018 ...10 ^ Vfutozs_ | .Appellant/s 1 PO^J 4y1 Vvrrta{ (Respoiiclci) s : !; /llalw5,.latt it t l, o ORDER Case is called-out. No representation.
Stand over to L910212026.
:q'6fi-
Lady Member President
SP
\\ ro2 c \^\Pn^Yn ,V''\q
2,d.olatnAotdl
Lu. ?id!^ ,^€, 0r ll?
1lr
Oral: Hon'ble President ORDER Case is called-out. There is no representation on behalf of the Appellant. The Appeal is belated by 233 days.
- \\- R\uq(uort In support of the Application Mr.Nagendra Naidhu, the Appellant has sworn to an affidavit and particularly para 4 of the affidavit he has explained the cause of delay which reads as follows:
4. "I submlt that the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer DisPute Redressa Forum, Bangalore has passed an order dated.13.11.2O17 in CC No.1639/2013, there after I have gone through the order and discussed wlth my counsel and as per the instructlon of my counsel' I tried to comply the order whlch can be made to comply by me and some of clauses fur order could not be complled by me and hence I am tryhg to comply the orders whichever possible to me. In vlew of the said clrcumstatrces, I have unable to lile the above appeal in time and hence the delay is caused in filing the above appeal, hence this Hon'ble authority be pleased to condone the delay in filtng the appeal, otherwise I wlll be Put great hardship since the said order has been challenged and more over I have already complied some order by providing the Parking space and some other have been ln progress."
The explanation offered by the Appellant that, he tried to comply the Order of the District Commission and therefore there is delay. No material to show any partial compliance.
This kind of explanation will not constitute sufficient cause. There are no grounds to condone the delay.
- rI-
Hence, IA.No. | 12018 is rejected' Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed as time barred.
rq ?
La ember nt- BR