State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Radhika Builders And Ors vs Mrs.Daevi Prakash Sheth on 12 April, 2021
[FA/21/101 to 104]
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO.A/21/101 to A/21/104
(Arisen out of Order Dated 16/08/2018 in Consumer Complaint No.59 to 62/2020 of
South Mumbai District Commission at Parel)
1] M/s.Radhika Builders,
Office at Swapna Shrushti, Elegent,
R.S.No.348, Block No.335, Village Balshwar,
National Highway No.8, Kadodara-Palsana
Road, Surat - 39431.
2] Mr.Kapilkumar Vithalbhai Rank,
R/st : 112, Shardha Row House,
Nana Varachha, Surat 395 006
3] Mr.Bhaveshbhai Vithalbhai Paghdal,
R/at : C-4/504, Krishna Township,
Mota Varchha, Surat, 395006.
4] Mr.Ahokbhai Narshibhai Patel,
R/at : D-1002, Swastik Tower, Sarthana
Jakatnaka, Vasrachha Road, Surat 395 006.
5] Mr.Satishbhai Gopalbhai Patel,
R/at : A-36, Trikamnagar Society,
Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat 395 006.
6] Smt.Amita Kamleshbhai Bhesaniya,
R/at : C-501, Swastic Tower,
Sarthana Jakatnaka, Varachhaa Road,
Surat 395 006. ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
Mr.Prakash Chimanlal Sheth,
R/at : 1103, Sulsa Apartment, 254,
Ridge Road, Malbar Hill, Mumbai 400 006.
[A/21/101]
Mrs.Daevi Prakash Sheth,
R/at : 1103, Sulsa Apartment, 254,
Ridge Road, Malbar Hill, Mumbai 400 006.
[A/21/102]
Ms.Rashi Prakash Sheth,
R/at : 1103, Sulsa Apartment, 254,
Ridge Road, Malbar Hill, Mumbai 400 006.
[A/21/103] ............Respondent(s)
1
[FA/21/101 to 104]
Mrs. Alpa Prakash Sheth,
R/at : 1103, Sulsa Apartment, 254,
Ridge Road, Malbar Hill, Mumbai 400 006.
[A/21/104]
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Dr.S.K.Kakade, Presiding Member
For the Appellant/s: Adv.Baliram Kamble
For the Respondent/s: Adv.Rajesh Jain
COMMON ORDER
Per Dr.S.K. Kakade, Hon'ble Presiding Member
1. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by learned South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in the consumer complaint no.CC / 20 /59, dated 21st of October 2020 , the opposite parties in the consumer complaint preferred appeal before this Commission against the order challenging legality and validity of the order. The facts in deciding this appeal are as follows.
2. The appellants are builder developer M/s Radhika Constructions from Surat, Gujrat, while the complainants are residing in Mumbai, who purchased bungalows from the appellants for personal use, by paying some consideration. The bungalows are situated in Surat. The address of the said property is, Subplot K/107, Swapna Shrushti Elegant Scheme, Opp.Village Baleshwar, N.H.8, Kadodra, Palasana Road, Baleshwar, Surat. The respondents in these appeals, original complainants, filed complaints against the appellants before South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Mumbai, CC/ 20/ 59. Since learned South Mumbai District Consumer Forum passed No WS order against the appellants on 21st October 2020, the original opposite parties filed appeals against this order, claiming to condone the delay due to the lock down period due to Covid pandemic.
3. After receiving the request and written pursis of consent for final 2 [FA/21/101 to 104] hearing of these appeals, these appeals were heard together finally. Heard both the parties at length, duly represented through their advocates. Considering the rival contentions of both parties, submissions made before us, considering record and scope of the appeal, following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon are noted against them for the reasons given below.
4. POINT : Whether the limitation period for filing the written statements can be extended due to the exceptional situation created due to Corona-Covid-19 Pandemic?
5. Learned advocate for the appellants, Adv. Baliram Thakare, submitted that, there was delay in filing the written statements in all 4 complaints before South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai as there was lock down period due to Corona Pandemic. He invited our attention to the Order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, extending the limitation period in all matters, during Corona Pandemic. SUO motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 /2020, Re. Cognizance for Period of Limitation, which was decided on 10th July 2020 and then recently on 8th March 2021. Learned advocate for appellants submitted that, since the 45 days limitation period for filing written statement falls within the lockdown period between 15 th March 2020 to 14th March 2021, the same may be considered for these appeals and prayed for allowing these appeals to set aside the impugned order by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
6. Learned advocate for respondents, Adv. Rajesh Jain strongly opposed the contention and submission of the advocate for the appellants. In support of his contention, he invited the attention of the bench to the following judgments and orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The bench has gone through these rulings and has following opinion about each of the judgments about the applicability to the present appeal matters.
7. Sagufa Ahmed and Others Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products 3 [FA/21/101 to 104] Pvt.Ltd. and Ors, Civil Appeal No.3007-3008 of 2020, Supreme Court of India, Decided on 18th September 2020. In this ruling, Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed about the appeals filed prior to lockdown period, and hence it is not applicable to the present appeals, as the complaints were filed before learned South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission after the implementation of the New Consumer Protection Act 2019, i.e., after 20th July 2020.
8. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd.,(2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 757 : (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Civ.) 338 : 2020 SCC On-line SC 287. Decided on 4th March 2020.
This judgment and order by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dealt elaborately with "whether District forum has power to extend the limitation period of 45 day for filing written statement". Since the judgment and order was passed before the beginning of lockdown period and it does not deal with effect of lockdown period, the same is not applicable to the present matters.
9. Anshul Agarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Auth., SLP to Appeal (Civil)/2011 and CC 12439 /2011, Supreme Court of India, Decided on 9th August 2011. The judgment and order have discussed the rejection of delay condonation due to the medical illness of the advocate. Since this is of 2011, the facts and circumstances are not applicable to the present matters.
10. Considering all the above discussion and the rulings referred by both the parties, the bench is of the opinion that, these complaints were filed during lockdown period when Hon'ble Supreme Court had already passed order of extensions of limitation period in all cases/ matters in Courts and Tribunals all over India. Subsequently, by referring the latest order from Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 8th March 2021, the has allowed the extension of limitation period and para 2 (2) of the order reads as below.
4[FA/21/101 to 104] " in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15th March 2020 till 14th March 2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all person shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15th March 2021.In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15thMarch 2021, is greater than 90 days that longer period shall apply."
11. Considering the above order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , in the interest of justice , this bench has no hesitation to allow appeals and set aside the impugned order passed by learned South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai. Hence proceeds to pass following order.
ORDER
1) The appeals are hereby allowed, with costs quantified to Rs.2000/- in each case, to be paid by appellants to the respondent-original complainant.
2) The order passed by learned South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 21stOctober 2020 in consumer complaint no. 59 of 2020 , is here by set side.
3) The appellants are hereby directed to file written statements in all appeals, FA/20/101 to 104, before South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by appearing on 19thApril 2021.Learned South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Mumbai to follow procedure in accordance with the law.
4) The copy of this order is to be made available to both the parties immediately.
Pronounced on 12th April, 2021.
[Dr.S.K.Kakade] Presiding Member 5 [FA/21/101 to 104] 6