State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hiranandani Builders And Developers ... vs Mehbubi Anwar Khan And Anr on 3 January, 2020
1 (MA/19/81 IN A/19/137)
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
MA/19/81 IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.A/19/137
1. Hirani Manthan Builders & Developers
B-110, Shweta Park,
Daulat Nagar Road No.2,
Borivali(E),
Mumbai 400 066.
2. Manish K.Morajkar
Partner of
Hirani Manthan Builders & Developers
B-110, Shweta Park,
Daulat Nagar Road No.2,
Borivali(E),
Mumbai 400 066. Appellant(s)
versus
1. Mehbubi Anwar Khan
Angolimala Co.Op.Hsg.Soc.,
Room No.206, 2nd floor,
Nehru Nagar,
Kurla(E),
Mumbai 400 024.
2. Nehru Nagar Shri Siddhi
Co.Op.Society Ltd.
Through the Secretary
R.J.Vengurlekar
Bldg.No.61, 1st floor,
Room No.101,
Vidyut Sagar Co.Op.Hsg.Society,
Nehru Nagar,
Kurla(E),
Mumbai 400 024. Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
P.B.Joshi, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
A.K.Zade, Hon'ble Member 2 (MA/19/81 IN A/19/137) PRESENT:
For the Advocate Ajay Pawar i/b
Petitioner(s) : M/s.V& M Legal
For the
Respondent(s): Advocate J.K.Shah
ORAL ORDER
Per: Mr.P.B.Joshi, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member [1] Appellant has preferred present appeal against order dated 06/04/2018 passed by the learned Addl. Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bandra(E), Mumbai 400 051 in consumer complaint No. CC/14/118. As there is delay in filing appeal, applicant/appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay. It was submitted that the applicant/ appellant had instructed his Advocate to file appeal. However, afterwards applicant/appellant came to know that said Advocate has not file appeal and hence applicant/appellant have instructed another Advocate to file appeal. He filed appeal. There is delay of 259 days in filing appeal. It is submitted that applicant/appellant have good case on merits and hence by imposing some costs delay may be condoned.
[2] Advocate for respondent strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there is no ground much less just ground to condone the delay. Only to say that Advocate has not filed appeal and hence there is delay, cannot be a ground to condone the delay. Learned Advocate for respondent submitted Judgment of Apex Court reported in 2011 DgLaw(SC) 2948 between Anshul Aggarwal versus New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. Their Lordships of Apex Court have observed that, "it is also right to observe that while deciding application filed in such cases for condonation of delay 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 3 (MA/19/81 IN A/19/137) 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 foras."
[3] Keeping in view facts of the present case, where there is delay of 259 days in filing appeal and the ground that Advocate has not filed appeal, hence there is delay, cannot be considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence, application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. Hence, we proceed to pass following order-
ORDER 1] Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
2] As application for condonation of delay is rejected appeal does not survive for consideration.
3] No order as to costs.
Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties. Pronounced on 3rd January, 2020.
[P.B.JOSHI] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.K.ZADE] MEMBER rsc