State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Finance Ltd, Through Its ... vs Somvir Singh Bhadoriya, on 30 April, 2026
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
FIRST APPEAL NO.26 OF 2023
(Arising out of order dated 28.12.2019 passed in Case.No.623/2018 by
District Commission, Bhopal No.1)
BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE
LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER -
SANDEEP SINGH RATHORE,
ADDRESS - MUMBAI PUNE ROAD,
AKURDI PUNE. ... APPELLANT.
Versus
SOMVIR SINGH BHADORIYA,
R/O C-21, RAMESWARAM DULEX,
BAGMUGALIYA, MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL,
BHOPAL. .... RESPONDENT.
BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Ms.Jyoti Tomar, learned counsel for appellant.
Respondent present in person.
ORDER
(Passed on .04.2026) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :
-2-
Ms.Jyoti Tomar, appears on behalf of Shri Rahul Ganeshe, learned counsel for the appellant.
Respondent present in person.
Heard on IA 1, an application filed by appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of
2 years and 11 months. But as per office noting, after exemption of COVID period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, actual delay is of 11 months and 2 days.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant - Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, who has also filed written arguments, submitted that aggrieved by the impugned order 28.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal No.1 (for short 'District Commission') in complaint case no.623/2018, the present appeal has been filed on 28.12.2022. She argued that the necessity for an appeal only became apparent following the District Commission's order dated 05.12.2022 which allegedly exceeded the original order dated 28.12.2019 by directing application of prevailing interest on all three accounts in accordance with RBI guidelines and adjustment of the excess amount recovered. She stated that the intervening period was -3- spent obtaining independent legal opinion to understand the legal implications of the said order.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the delay is bonafide and is not intentional. Initial delay is of 1050 days, however, in view of the directions passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.03 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has been excluded for the purpose of limitation, the effective delay is reduced to 335 days. If the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, it will cause irreparable loss to the appellant. Learned counsel thus prayed that IA 1 be allowed and delay in filing the appeal be condoned and matter be heard on its merits. Learned counsel referred judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the written arguments which have been filed.
4. The respondent objected to IA 1 and submitted that no sufficient cause to condone such huge delay is there. Therefore, IA 1 and the appeal, both be dismissed.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and respondent on due consideration of IA 1, application for condonation of delay, we are of a view that the reason assigned -4- for the inordinate delay of 11 months and 2 days is not at all satisfactory. It is a settled principle of law that delay of each and every day must be explained. The appellant appeared and participated in the execution proceedings and thereafter, filed appeal against the impugned order. The appellant's claim that they needed extensive time to seek legal advice does not constitute a sufficient cause. It is well settled that ignorance of the law or a routine delay in seeking legal opinion does not justify overriding statutory timelines. The judgment referred are also of no help since sufficient cause is not observed for the purpose of condonation of delay in the instant matter.
5. 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 period of limitation.
-5-
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal 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.
7. On going through the decision Hon'ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal (supra), we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the 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.
8. The delay in this matter is found to be inordinate and lacks a rational day-to-day explanation. A party seeking discretionary relief from the court must show they acted with due diligence and bonafides, which is not there in this case. Therefore, -6- we do not find the explanation believable, reasonable and satisfactory to condone the said delay of 11 months and 2 days, in filing the appeal.
9. Hence the application IA 1, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected.
10. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed, as barred by limitation in limine, with no order as to costs.
(Justice Smt.Sunita Yadav) [Dr.(Mrs)Monika Malik]
President Member
Sangeeta
APPEAL NO.26/2023
BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED
VERSUS
SOMVIR SINGH BHADORIYA
FOR CONSIDERATION
DR.(MRS) MONIKA MALIK
MEMBER
HON'BLE PRESIDENT
(JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV)
POST FOR ....2026
(JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV)
PRESIDENT