Being busy in looking after one’s business is not a ground for condonation of delay: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

After being aggrieved by the Decision of the District Commission, the Complainant sought for an appeal before the State Commission. However, an appeal to the State Commission was made after the lapse of 1053 days. He asked the Commission to condone the delay as he was busy looking after his business affairs, which the Commission declined. This was observed in the matter of R Shivakumar v. M/s Green Country Agro Foods Ltd., [ A/526/2021] , before Hon’ble Presiding Member, Mr. Ravishankar and Member, Smt. Sunita Channabasappa Begwadi.

The brief facts of the case are as follows, believing on the assurance made by the OP, the Complainant invested in their scheme. After maturity, when the Complainant tried to reach out to the OP, he came to know that their office/branch in Bangalore is closed. Moreover, the OP never responded to the Complainant’s calls. A legal notice was sent to the OP, that returned un-served. A complaint was filed before the District Commission praying for refund of the maturity, but the complaint was dismissed. Hence, the appeal before the State Commission.

After referring the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the District Commission’s order, and the application provided by the Complainant for condoning the delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the Commission held the following, “we noticed that the appellant has mentioned that there is a delay of 558 days in filing the appeal, whereas in the office note it reflects that there is a delay of 1053 days. The memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant and in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, the appellant narrates that he was very much busy in his business and also busy in taking care of his bedridden parents since five years. We found the said reasons are not just cause for condone the delay in not filing the appeal in time. The appellant has not produced any medical records to show that he was looking his bedridden parents. Apart from that the reason that he was busy in looking after his business is not a ground for condonation of delay. As such there is a gross negligence on the part of appellant in not filing the appeal in time and not explained sufficient and valid reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the delay application filed U/s 5 of the Limitation Act is labile to be dismissed………Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed”.

Click Here to Read the Judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat