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

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN BANGALORE First Appeal No. A 526 2021 Date of Filing : 17 Jul 2021 Arisen out of Order Dated 18 06 2018 in Case No. CC 1203 2015 of District Bangalore 3rd 1. R Shivakumar S o Late R Rangashetty aged 50 yrs R at No.48 Sri Lakshmi Ranganatha Swamy Nilaya 2nd main road Sampige Layout Vijayanagar North Bangalore 79 1. M s Green country Agro Foods Ltd. No.346 III floor Manandi Court 27th cross III block Jayanagar Bangalore 560011. Also at No.19 1 Raghavaiah road T Nagar Chennai 600017 2. M s The National Cooperative Bank Ltd No.53 1 Bull Temple Road Bangalore 560019 HON BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER Dated : 05 Oct 2021 Final Order Judgement THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANGALORE.Believing the said assurances the said persons invested the money under the scheme but after payment of the first installment they supplied assured quantity of rice for few months initially but gradually they stopped supply of rice and pulses as assured. The amount invested reached to the date of maturity and after maturity the complainant tried to contact the Opposite Parties and came to know that the said branch of the Opposite Party at Bangalore was closed. The Opposite Party is neither responding to any of the phone calls made by the complainant nor available at the above mentioned address. Subsequently the complainant got issued legal notice dated:30.04.2015 through advocate but the said legal notice was returned un served. Hence the complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties and prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the maturity amount along with compensation. After service of notice the OP No.1 not appeared and the OP No.2 appeared and filed the version contending that there is no transaction took place between the complainant and themselves and they have issued F.D. receipts in the name of OP No.1 only. If at all there is any transaction took place that was only with the OP No.1 and they are not the Consumers as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act and prays for dismissal of the complaint. After trial the District Commission concluded that the complainant is not a Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and dismissed the complaint After dismissal of the complaint the appellant complainants preferred this appeal after lapse of 1053 days and filed an application U s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay We have heard the arguments on admission 3 The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the complainant is a GPA holder of the beneficiary and they are all relatives. Basing on the assurance given by the OP No.1 i.e Green Country Agro Foods Limited they have invested certain amounts by installments. But after the maturity OP No.1 not traced out and even the legal notice issued to the Opposite Party No.1 was returned un served. Hence they filed a complaint before the District Commission and prayed for refund of the entire maturity amount from both OP Nos. 1 & 2 but the District Commission has dismissed the complaint holding that F.D. not stands in the name of said Prashanthi and it only stands in the name of Opposite Party No.1 which was issued by Opposite Party No.2 but the beneficiaries are the complainants and without considering the said fact the District Commission dismissed the complaint as the complainant is not a Consumer at all. Hence prays for setting aside the impugned order passed by the III Additional District consumer Commission and submits that the complainant is a business man and he is very much busy in looking after his business and also in looking after his aged bedridden parents. Hence he was not able to file this appeal well within time and also prays to condone the delay On going through the memorandum of appeal certified copy of the order and application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay U s 5 of the Limitation Act 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. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: The delay application filed by the appellant is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed. No costs Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission Sd Sd Member. Judicial Member HON BLE MR. Ravishankar 4 HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi 5 

Summary: 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”.