MARZBAN AFLATOON KHAIRBADI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the order dtd. 30/6/2025 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, whereby Revision Petition No. NC/RP/917/2025 came to be rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the earlier order dtd. 19/12/2024 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, whereby Miscellaneous Application No. MA/23/29 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay of ninety seven days in filing Appeal No. A/23/86 of 2023 was rejected. The challenge is thus directed against concurrent orders refusing to condone delay and declining to entertain the statutory appeal on merits.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in the year 2014 respondent no.2, namely Seventh Heaven Co- operative Society, instituted Consumer Complaint No. 201 of 2014 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By judgment dtd. 17/6/2022, the said complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission. It is the case of the petitioner that the first free certified copy of the said judgment was received by him on 13/9/2022. Thereafter, in January 2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The said application came to be dismissed on 19/12/2024. The petitioner thereafter applied for certified copy of the said order on 6/1/2025 and subsequently addressed a reminder dtd. 11/4/2025 for issuance thereof. Since no relief was obtained, the petitioner approached the National Commission by filing Revision Petition No. NC/RP/917/2025, which also came to be dismissed by order dtd. 30/6/2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Kishor Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about sixty years and had suffered personal distress during pendency of the original consumer complaint, inasmuch as his mother and one of his brothers expired during the relevant period when all family members were arrayed as opposite parties. It was contended that due to emotional and family circumstances, coupled with health related difficulties, the petitioner was not in a position to promptly take a decision regarding filing of the appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was expecting his brother, who is respondent in the present proceedings, to initiate appellate proceedings, but because of lack of communication and absence of response, the petitioner was ultimately required to institute the appeal independently and at his own expense. It was further urged that the petitioner is suffering from ailments such as high blood pressure, cholesterol and migraine, and has been under medical treatment since 5/8/2019. On these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.