State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.A.Parmeshwaran vs M.N.Koli Chs.Ltd.Through Proprietor ... on 20 August, 2018
MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Misc. Application No. MA/17/476 a/w. Appeal No. A/17/1147
(Arisen out of order dated 18/10/2016 passed in complaint No.351/2014 by District
Central Mumbai)
Mr.A. Parmeshwaran
R/o. Room No.304,
Anna Nagar, Navjeevan
Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
Saint Kakkaya Marg,
Dharavi, Mumbai-400 017. ...........Appellant (s)
Versus
1. Mr.A. Deepak Rao (Proprietor)
Plot No.1463, M.N. Koli Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
Mahim Causeway Road, Mahim,
Mumbai - 400 016.
2. Mr.A. Deepak Rao (Proprietor)
M/s.Acannor Associates
God's Gift Tower, No.201,
2nd floor, S.V. Road, Hiss Road Junction,
Near Lucky Hotel, Bandra (West),
Mumbai - 400 050. ............Respondent (s)
BEFORE:
Usha S. Thakare PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Mr.Prakash Kadam, Advocate for
Appellant: appellant.
For the Ms.Soumya Poojari, Advocate for
Respondent: respondents.
ORDER
Per Mrs.Usha S. Thakare, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by the order dated 18/10/2016 passed by the Learned District Forum, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint No.351/2014, original complainant-Mr.A. Parmeshwaran has preferred present appeal. However, there is delay of 280 days in filing present appeal. Therefore, complainant/applicant/appellant has filed application Page 1 of 6 MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Misc. Application No. MA/17/476 a/w. Appeal No. A/17/1147 (Arisen out of order dated 18/10/2016 passed in complaint No.351/2014 by District Central Mumbai) Mr.A. Parmeshwaran R/o. Room No.304, Anna Nagar, Navjeevan Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
Saint Kakkaya Marg, Dharavi, Mumbai-400 017. ...........Appellant (s) Versus
1. Mr.A. Deepak Rao (Proprietor) Plot No.1463, M.N. Koli Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
Mahim Causeway Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400 016.
2. Mr.A. Deepak Rao (Proprietor) M/s.Acannor Associates God's Gift Tower, No.201, 2nd floor, S.V. Road, Hiss Road Junction, Near Lucky Hotel, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050. ............Respondent (s) BEFORE:
Usha S. Thakare PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Mr.Prakash Kadam, Advocate for Appellant: appellant.
For the Ms.Soumya Poojari, Advocate for
Respondent: respondents.
ORDER
Per Mrs.Usha S. Thakare, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by the order dated 18/10/2016 passed by the Learned District Forum, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint No.351/2014, original complainant-Mr.A. Parmeshwaran has preferred present appeal. However, there is delay of 280 days in filing present appeal. Therefore, complainant/applicant/appellant has filed application Page 1 of 6 MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 for condonation of delay.
2. By the impugned order, the Learned District Forum was pleased to allow the consumer complaint partly. Opponents/respondents are directed to pay Rs.3,09,000/- to complainant with interest @ 24% p.a. from 12/08/2006 till its realisation. Opponents/respondents are directed to pay Rs.1 Lakh to the complainant towards mental pain and agony and Rs.25,000/- towards costs. It is directed to comply the order within two months from the date of passing of order.
3. According to applicant/appellant he is residing in rental premises and retired from the Government service as driver. He has to visit his native place in Tamilnadu as his Father-in-law is old aged and suffering from Alzamire, brain disease. No one is there to take care of him, so applicant has to stay there along with wife to take care of 85 years old father-in-law. Certified copy of the order was received by cousin of the applicant on 03/11/2016 but his cousin failed to inform about receipt of free copy to the applicant/appellant. Applicant/appellant returned from Tamilnadu in the month of January 2017. At that time, his cousin informed him about receipt of copy of order. Applicant/appellant immediately contacted his lawyer but the lawyer was not available. In the meantime, applicant/appellant received phone call from his native place and as condition of his father-in-law-Mr.Subbiah Shervaran is critical, applicant rushed to his native place. Applicant and his wife are not educated. His wife is the only daughter of his father-in-law. Applicant/ appellant could not file appeal well within time. Applicant/appellant returned from his native place for his pension work. At that time he discussed the issue to file appeal with his lawyer. His lawyer on record advised him to contact another lawyer who practices in the State Commission. But again, applicant/appellant was required to rush to his Page 2 of 6 MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 for condonation of delay.
2. By the impugned order, the Learned District Forum was pleased to allow the consumer complaint partly. Opponents/respondents are directed to pay Rs.3,09,000/- to complainant with interest @ 24% p.a. from 12/08/2006 till its realisation. Opponents/respondents are directed to pay Rs.1 Lakh to the complainant towards mental pain and agony and Rs.25,000/- towards costs. It is directed to comply the order within two months from the date of passing of order.
3. According to applicant/appellant he is residing in rental premises and retired from the Government service as driver. He has to visit his native place in Tamilnadu as his Father-in-law is old aged and suffering from Alzamire, brain disease. No one is there to take care of him, so applicant has to stay there along with wife to take care of 85 years old father-in-law. Certified copy of the order was received by cousin of the applicant on 03/11/2016 but his cousin failed to inform about receipt of free copy to the applicant/appellant. Applicant/appellant returned from Tamilnadu in the month of January 2017. At that time, his cousin informed him about receipt of copy of order. Applicant/appellant immediately contacted his lawyer but the lawyer was not available. In the meantime, applicant/appellant received phone call from his native place and as condition of his father-in-law-Mr.Subbiah Shervaran is critical, applicant rushed to his native place. Applicant and his wife are not educated. His wife is the only daughter of his father-in-law. Applicant/ appellant could not file appeal well within time. Applicant/appellant returned from his native place for his pension work. At that time he discussed the issue to file appeal with his lawyer. His lawyer on record advised him to contact another lawyer who practices in the State Commission. But again, applicant/appellant was required to rush to his Page 2 of 6 MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 native place in the month of May. At his native, applicant/appellant suffered from fever during 20/05/2017 to 20/08/2017. On these grounds, applicant/appellant has requested to condone the delay. It is submitted that delay is not deliberate or intentional and in the interest of justice, delay may be condoned.
4. Application for condonation of delay is resisted by filing reply along with affidavit on behalf of respondents by Mr.Deepak Rao. Respondents denied the reasons stated by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay. It is specifically denied that applicant/appellant was ill. It is submitted that filing of medical certificate does not suffice the purpose to condone the delay. The certificate which is attached is a bogus medical certificate. Applicant/appellant failed to explain day-to-day delay in filing appeal by cogent reasons. Balance of convenience is in favour of respondents. Respondents have suffered a lot. Application is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Heard Learned Counsel Mr.Prakash Kadam for applicant/appellant and Learned Counsel Ms.Soumya Poojari for non-applicants/respondents.
Perused documents on record.
6. Consumer complaint filed by the applicant/appellant-Mr.A. Parameshwaran as per consumer complaint No.351/2014 is decided by order dated 18/10/2016. Applicant/appellant-complainant filed consumer complaint No.351/2014 by appointing Advocate Mr.Cittarasan. Applicant/appellant-complainant led his evidence by filing an affidavit. Certainly, he had filed brief notes of arguments. His consumer complaint is partly allowed. Applicant/appellant admits that copy of order was received by his cousin on 03/11/2016. It was duty of his cousin to give information about receipt of order copy to the applicant. Now-a-days, Page 3 of 6 MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 native place in the month of May. At his native, applicant/appellant suffered from fever during 20/05/2017 to 20/08/2017. On these grounds, applicant/appellant has requested to condone the delay. It is submitted that delay is not deliberate or intentional and in the interest of justice, delay may be condoned.
4. Application for condonation of delay is resisted by filing reply along with affidavit on behalf of respondents by Mr.Deepak Rao. Respondents denied the reasons stated by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay. It is specifically denied that applicant/appellant was ill. It is submitted that filing of medical certificate does not suffice the purpose to condone the delay. The certificate which is attached is a bogus medical certificate. Applicant/appellant failed to explain day-to-day delay in filing appeal by cogent reasons. Balance of convenience is in favour of respondents. Respondents have suffered a lot. Application is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Heard Learned Counsel Mr.Prakash Kadam for applicant/appellant and Learned Counsel Ms.Soumya Poojari for non-applicants/respondents. Perused documents on record.
6. Consumer complaint filed by the applicant/appellant-Mr.A. Parameshwaran as per consumer complaint No.351/2014 is decided by order dated 18/10/2016. Applicant/appellant-complainant filed consumer complaint No.351/2014 by appointing Advocate Mr.Cittarasan. Applicant/appellant-complainant led his evidence by filing an affidavit. Certainly, he had filed brief notes of arguments. His consumer complaint is partly allowed. Applicant/appellant admits that copy of order was received by his cousin on 03/11/2016. It was duty of his cousin to give information about receipt of order copy to the applicant. Now-a-days, Page 3 of 6 MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 mobile facility and internet facility are common. It was not difficult for cousin of the applicant/appellant to inform about receipt of order copy.
7. Applicant/appellant-complainant was having knowledge about judgment and order passed in his favour. It was his duty to make inquiry about free copy from the Counsel appointed by him. If the applicant/appellant was diligent, on inquiry he should come to know about sending of free copy and about receipt of copy.
8. Applicant/appellant has made general submission that he was required to visit Tamilnadu. He did not say specifically when he had been to Tamilnadu and when he had came back in the month of January 2017. Applicant/appellant got knowledge of receipt of copy according to him in the month of January 2017. Attempt is made to show that again he had to rush to his native place as his father-in-law was not well and his condition became critical. Medical Certificate pertaining to critical condition of his father-in-law in the month of January 2017 is not filed on record. It is not pleaded as to when applicant/appellant rush to his native place at Tamilnadu on getting information of critical condition of his father-in-law. Railway Ticket or any other documents are not filed on record.
9. It appears that applicant/appellant discussed the issue of filing an appeal with his Advocate, who in turn advised him to contact the lawyer practicing in the State Commission. Again submissions are vague. Applicant/appellant should have stated as to when he contacted his lawyer and when he tried to meet an Advocate practicing at the State Commission. Photograph of his father-in-law is filed at Exhibit-A, but photograph is not sufficient to fill-up the lacuna.
10. It is the contention of the applicant/appellant that he had suffered Page 4 of 6 MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 mobile facility and internet facility are common. It was not difficult for cousin of the applicant/appellant to inform about receipt of order copy.
7. Applicant/appellant-complainant was having knowledge about judgment and order passed in his favour. It was his duty to make inquiry about free copy from the Counsel appointed by him. If the applicant/appellant was diligent, on inquiry he should come to know about sending of free copy and about receipt of copy.
8. Applicant/appellant has made general submission that he was required to visit Tamilnadu. He did not say specifically when he had been to Tamilnadu and when he had came back in the month of January 2017. Applicant/appellant got knowledge of receipt of copy according to him in the month of January 2017. Attempt is made to show that again he had to rush to his native place as his father-in-law was not well and his condition became critical. Medical Certificate pertaining to critical condition of his father-in-law in the month of January 2017 is not filed on record. It is not pleaded as to when applicant/appellant rush to his native place at Tamilnadu on getting information of critical condition of his father-in-law. Railway Ticket or any other documents are not filed on record.
9. It appears that applicant/appellant discussed the issue of filing an appeal with his Advocate, who in turn advised him to contact the lawyer practicing in the State Commission. Again submissions are vague. Applicant/appellant should have stated as to when he contacted his lawyer and when he tried to meet an Advocate practicing at the State Commission. Photograph of his father-in-law is filed at Exhibit-A, but photograph is not sufficient to fill-up the lacuna.
10. It is the contention of the applicant/appellant that he had suffered Page 4 of 6 MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 from fever during 20/05/2017 to 20/08/2017 when he was at his native place. Medical Certificate is filed at Exhibit-B, which is dated 21/08/2017. It is certified that Mr.Parameshwaran was suffering from "Acute Gastroenteritis with fever". Medical Officer considered that period of absence from duty for three months with effect from 20/05/2017 to 20/08/2017 is absolutely necessary for the restoration of his health.
11. Applicant/appellant is a retired Government servant. In Para 3 the applicant/appellant has stated that he is retired from Government Service as driver. It is not made clear when the applicant/appellant was retired from the service. It appears doubtful whether applicant/appellant was in Government Service when Medical Certificate was issued by Dr.R. Mahaganesh. Apart from that Medical Certificate does not show that the applicant/appellant was hospitalised and he was restricted to bed. It can be inferred that condition of the applicant/appellant was not so critical that he could not contact his lawyer to file an appeal.
12. Railway ticket filed by the applicant/appellant shows that he had travelled on 02/09/2017 from Tirunelveli by Sleeper Coach to Dadar. He reached Dadar on 03/09/2017. On arrival, applicant/appellant filed appeal on 12/09/2017.
13. It is harped upon that the applicant/appellant due to critical condition of his father-in-law was required to go to his native place often and therefore, there is delay in filing appeal. Not a single document is placed on record to prove critical condition of his father-in-law. There is inordinate delay of 280 days in filing appeal.
14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggrawal V/s. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) held that-
Page 5 of 6MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 from fever during 20/05/2017 to 20/08/2017 when he was at his native place. Medical Certificate is filed at Exhibit-B, which is dated 21/08/2017. It is certified that Mr.Parameshwaran was suffering from "Acute Gastroenteritis with fever". Medical Officer considered that period of absence from duty for three months with effect from 20/05/2017 to 20/08/2017 is absolutely necessary for the restoration of his health.
11. Applicant/appellant is a retired Government servant. In Para 3 the applicant/appellant has stated that he is retired from Government Service as driver. It is not made clear when the applicant/appellant was retired from the service. It appears doubtful whether applicant/appellant was in Government Service when Medical Certificate was issued by Dr.R. Mahaganesh. Apart from that Medical Certificate does not show that the applicant/appellant was hospitalised and he was restricted to bed. It can be inferred that condition of the applicant/appellant was not so critical that he could not contact his lawyer to file an appeal.
12. Railway ticket filed by the applicant/appellant shows that he had travelled on 02/09/2017 from Tirunelveli by Sleeper Coach to Dadar. He reached Dadar on 03/09/2017. On arrival, applicant/appellant filed appeal on 12/09/2017.
13. It is harped upon that the applicant/appellant due to critical condition of his father-in-law was required to go to his native place often and therefore, there is delay in filing appeal. Not a single document is placed on record to prove critical condition of his father-in-law. There is inordinate delay of 280 days in filing appeal.
14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggrawal V/s. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) held that-
Page 5 of 6MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the order of the Consumer Fora."
15. Applicant/appellant failed to substantiate the delay in filing appeal by cogent and sufficient reasons. Application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 20th August 2018.
[ Usha S. Thakare ] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER dd.
Page 6 of 6MA/17/476 a/w. A/17/1147 "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the order of the Consumer Fora."
15. Applicant/appellant failed to substantiate the delay in filing appeal by cogent and sufficient reasons. Application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 20th August 2018.
[ Usha S. Thakare ] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER dd.
Page 6 of 6