- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32900-DB WP No. 34617 of 2024 C/W WP No. 35657 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 34617 OF 2024 (GM-CON) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 35657 OF 2024 (GM-CON) IN WP No. 34617/2024 BETWEEN: SRI.V.HARI, S/O LATE.P.VENKATAKARISHNACHARI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.95, SHREE NILAYA, ROYAL SHELTERS, IIM POST, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.PAVAN N. REDDY FOR SRI.LEELARAJU.M.N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.K.NIRANJAN REDDY, S/O SRI.K.VISWANATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.204, ROSHAN ENCLAVE APARTMENT, NANJUNDAIAH LAYOUT, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32900-DB WP No. 34617 of 2024 C/W WP No. 35657 of 2024 BEHIND CANARA BANK, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 068. …RESPONDENT (BY MISS.PREETHA M., FOR SRI.SANTOSHRAJ C DESHAMUKH., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.11.2024 PASSED BY THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.2742/2024, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C (B) CALL FOR RECORDS OF CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.256/2023 FROM THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU IN RELATION TO THE EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER AND ETC. IN WP NO. 35657/2024 BETWEEN: SRI.V.HARI, S/O LATE.P.VENKATAKARISHNACHARI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.95, SHREE NILAYA, ROYAL SHELTERS, IIM POST, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.PAVAN N. REDDY FOR SRI.LEELARAJU.M.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.K.NIRANJAN REDDY, S/O SRI.K.VISHWANATHA REDDY, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32900-DB WP No. 34617 of 2024 C/W WP No. 35657 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.204, ROSHAN ENCLAVE APARTMENT, NANJUNDAIAH LAYOUT, BEHIND CANARA BANK, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 068. 2. SMT.SWAROOPA.K, W/O SRI.K.NIRANJAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.204, ROSHAN ENCLAVE APARTMENT, NANJUNDAIAH LAYOUT, BEHIND CANARA BANK, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 068. ...RESPONDENTS (BY MISS.PREETHA M., FOR SRI.SANTOSHRAJ C DESHAMUKH., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO IS (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.11.2024 PASSED BY THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL NO.2743/2024, DISMISSING THE PETITIONER APPEAL AND REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C (B) CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.257/2023 FROM THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU, IN RELATION TO THE EX- PARTE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2023, FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32900-DB WP No. 34617 of 2024 C/W WP No. 35657 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that, against an order of the State Commission, an appeal lies before the National Commission. In support of her contention, learned counsel has referred to following three judgments: (i) Cicily Kallarackal -vs- Vehicle Factory, SLP (C) No.24228-24229/2012 (CC Nos.12891-12892/2012), disposed of on 06.08.2012, (ii) Pranav Ansal -vs- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner, Punjab and others, CWP.No.9079/2020, disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, on 13.08.2020, (iii) Gurjeet Singh Johar and another -vs- Union of India and others, CWP.No.11539/2020, disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, on 18.02.2021. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32900-DB WP No. 34617 of 2024 C/W WP No. 35657 of 2024 2. However, a perusal of the aforesaid judgments reflects that they are on different facts as compared to those in the instant petition, inasmuch as, an order under challenge has been passed by the State Commission, rejecting the delay condonation application filed by the petitioner in an appeal against an order passed by the I Addl.District Consumer Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, on 16.12.2023 in Complaint No.256/2023. 3. In view of a reading of provision of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with Section 47 of the said Act, leave no rule in doubt that, against such an order passed by the State Commission, no appeal will lie before the National Commission. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised is rejected. ORDER ON W.P.No.34617/2024 4. The instant petition has been filed seeking the following relief: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the impugned order dated 13/11/2024 passed by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32900-DB WP No. 34617 of 2024 C/W WP No. 35657 of 2024 the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.2742/2024, dismissing the Petitioner's appeal and rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, produced as Annexure C. b) Call for the records of Consumer Complaint No.256/2023 from the I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in relation to the ex parte proceedings and the order dated 16/12/2023, for proper adjudication of the matter. c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to admit and adjudicate the Petitioner's appeal in Appeal No.2742/2024 on its merits. d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. 5. Under challenge is the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in appeal No.2742/2024 filed against an order passed by the District Commission on 16.12.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.256/2023. By means of the impugned order dated 13.11.2024, the delay condonation application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. The State Commission has recorded that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32900-DB WP No. 34617 of 2024 C/W WP No. 35657 of 2024 appellant/petitioner was placed ex-parte before the District Commission and no valid reasons were urged before the Commission that why he was placed ex-parte. The Commission was also found that there was 244 days delay in filing the appeal and no valid grounds were raised as to why there was a delay in filing the appeal. Mere swearing affidavit that he was not aware of the complaint filed by the complainant and notice was not served on him, were not valid reasons and hence, the appeal was dismissed. 6. A perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that is enclosed with an affidavit reflects that it was filed on 04.11.2024 before the State Commission. In the affidavit, it has been stated by the deponent/petitioner that he had been placed ex-parte before the District Forum, he had not received any notices from the District Forum and also not received the free copy of order. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out the order sheet that has been filed as Annexure -A to the Writ Petition to contend that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32900-DB WP No. 34617 of 2024 C/W WP No. 35657 of 2024 endorsement has been made therein regarding dispatch of the notice by the District Commission on 27.09.2023 by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and the registered post receipt number is also mentioned. Learned counsel also pointed out that notice issued to the petitioner was returned as refused which was held to be sufficient service. 7. No material has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate the allegations made by him in the affidavit in support of the delay condonation application. We note that in the order, the Court had directed that the copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost. 8. There is a noting on the margin of the order sheet dated 16.12.2023 that the order was dispatched on 30.12.2023. 9. Under the circumstances we see no merit in the instant petition filed by the petitioner and it is accordingly dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32900-DB WP No. 34617 of 2024 C/W WP No. 35657 of 2024 IN W.P.No. 35657/2024 10. The facts of the instant case are similar to the facts in connected W.P.No.34617/2024. This petition is therefore dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in W.P.No.34617/2024. 11. Pending I.As, stand disposed of. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BK/BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19