State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sbi Branch Khirkiya Acb ,Khirkiya vs Mangilal on 6 November, 2024
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.) APPEAL NO. 1674/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
BHAGWAT SINGH S/O REVARAM RAJPUT AND ANOTHER APPEAL NO. 1684/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
ATMARAM S/O KALLU CHAKDE AND ANOTHER APPEAL NO. 1686/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
MANGILAL S/O MEHATAP SINGH RAJPUT AND ANOTHER APPEAL NO. 1688/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
RAMBHAROSE VISHNOI S/O MEMRAJ VISHNOI AND ANOTHER APPEAL NO. 1697/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
GENDALAL S/O SABAL SINGH RAJPUT AND ANOTHER : 2 : APPEAL NO. 1705/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
BASANT KUMAR S/O RAMDAS GURJAR AND ANOTHER APPEAL NO. 1706/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
ANOOP SINGH S/O PRAHALAD RAJPUT AND ANOTHER APPEAL NO. 1710/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
HARGOVIND S/O KEWALRAM MUKATI AND ANOTHER APPEAL NO. 1718/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
PUSHPA BAI W/O MOHANLAL DESHVANI (MEENA) AND ANOTHER APPEAL NO. 1728/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
RADHEYSHYAM S/O MANGILAL RATHORE AND ANOTHER APPEAL NO. 1753/2024 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS.
ROHIT S/O RAMKRISHNA KARODE AND OTHERS : 3 : HYBRID HEARING Date of order ORDER 6.11.2024 Shri Avnish Barya, learned counsel for appellant.
This order will govern disposal of all the 11 above mentioned appeals No.1674/24, 1684/24, 1686/24, 1688/24, 1697/24, 1705/24, 1706/24, 1710/24, 1718/24, 1728/24 and 1753/24. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are taken from appeal No. 1674/24, unless otherwise stated.
2. Heard on I.A.-1, an application filed by appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 1 year.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that since similar other cases were also pending in the branch, it took time to gather information regarding those cases and it also took time to get administrative permission for filing appeal from the competent authorities. Therefore, this appeal against the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Harda (for short 'the District Commission') in complaint case No.97/2021, could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
4. There is an inordinate delay of 1 year in filing the appeal. On perusal of I.A.-1, application seeking condonation of delay, we find that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 13.7.2023 was received by the : 4 : appellant on 22.7.2023 and the permission to file the appeal was granted on 14.5.2024 by the Regional Office of the appellant. Despite the permission, the instant appeal was filed on 29.8.2024. The explanation of the appellant that information regarding similar pending cases was gathering and in obtaining administrative permission for filing appeal also took time, is not at all satisfactory. The appellant was not at all diligent in filing the appeal.
5. In Maa Jhande Wali Constructions Private Limited vs. Parth Prathim Saha {2013 NCJ 722 (NC)}, the National Commission has held that - While dealing an 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 Appeal in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will be defeated if Court is to entertain highly belated application. In Delhi Development Authority vs. H.K. Gorawara {2013 NCJ 196 (NC)}, the National Commission has also held that - If sufficient cause is not proved then nothing further has to be done and application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone.
6. Therefore, we do not find the explanation believable, reasonable and satisfactory to condone the said inordinate delay of 1 year in filing the appeal. Delay cannot be condoned unless there are sufficient, convincing and cogent reasons for the same. Hence the application I.A.-1, seeking : 5 : condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed, as barred by limitation in limine.
7. This order be kept in appeal No.1674/2024 and copy of the same be placed in the record of appeal Nos. 1684/24, 1686/24, 1688/24, 1697/24, 1705/24, 1706/24, 1710/24, 1718/24, 1728/24 and 1753/24.
(Dr. Srikant Pandey) (Dr. Monika Malik)
Presiding Member Member
Mercy