National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Obelix Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors vs Digambar M. Meshram & Anr. on 24 January, 2022
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 15/06/2018 in Complaint No. 771/2017 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. OBELIX HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, ADITYA JAGDISH DWIVEDI 29, CHAITALI , WESTERN EXPRESS SOCIETY BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI 2. ADITYA JAGDISH DWIVEDI MATHURADAS MILLS COMPOUND NM JOSHI MARG , LOWER PAREL MUMBAI 3. MRS. ABEGAIL VANLALLIANI PACHUAU 9, GROUND FLOOR, SUNVELLE BANQUETS BR, ANNI BASANT ROAD SIDDHARTH NAGAR WORLI MUMBAI ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. DIGAMBAR M. MESHRAM & ANR. 605, MOUNT EVEREST-A, WING, BHAKTI PARK WADALA (E) MUMBAI 2. AKSHAY D MESHRAM 605, MOUNT EVEREST-A, WINGH BHAKTI PARK WADALA (E) MUMBAI ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. S. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate Mr. Uday Wavikar, Advocate Dated : 24 Jan 2022 ORDER Heard the Learned Counsel for both the sides.
1. Initially, the instant Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 16.07.2019 because the Interim Order dated 29.04.2019 has not been complied by the Appellants. The Order dated 29.04.2019 is reproduced as below:
"The learned counsel for the appellants states that the Email ID, namely, [email protected] was never used by the appellants after 2015 either for receiving or for sending any email.
Subject to the appellants remitting a sum of Rs.10,000/- as conveyance charges and miscellaneous expenses to the complainants/respondents, within two weeks, issue notice of the appeal as well application for condonation of delay to them, for 14.10.2019.
Till further orders of this Commission, the execution of the impugned order shall remain stayed, subject to the appellants depositing 50% of the amount payable in terms of the order of the State Commission with the said Commission within two weeks from today. The said amount, if deposited, shall not be released without prior orders of this Commission.
Re-notify on 14.10.2019."
2. This Appeal was restored vide Order dated 27.02.2020 on M.A. No.416/2019. The Order is reproduced as below:
"MA No. 416 of 2019Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant on the Application for recalling of the order dated 16.07.2019.
The instant First Appeal No. 671 of 2019 was dismissed in default and for want of prosecution. The Appellant has not complied with the interim order dated 29.04.2019.
For the reasons stated in the Application, the instant Appeal is restored to its original number. This restoration is subject to compliance of the previous order dated 29.04.2019.
The Application is allowed."
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents brought our attention that though the Appeal was restored, the Appellants have neither paid Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants/Respondents nor deposited the 50% amount as awarded by the State Commission. Almost two years are elapsed, the Appellants have no intention to deposit the amount.
4. It is pertinent to note that admittedly there was delay of more than 200 days in filing the instant Appeal. The application for condonation of delay is vague, nothing is forthcoming. It was just casually submitted with empty spaces.
5. The facts of the case on hand and considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by the Appellant. The Appellant has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is apparent inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions.
6. We are not going into the merits of the case in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No.9161/2019 in the Case of M/s. Singal Udyog Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. dated 02.12.2019 wherein it was held that "In the circumstances, the National Commission, having found that the appeal was barred by time, could not have dealt with merits of the matter."
7. For the reasons stated above, the present First Appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation, therefore, it cannot proceed on merit.
8. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this Order to the concerned parties by speed-post and e-mail within three days.
9. The stenographer is directed to upload this Order.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... BINOY KUMAR MEMBER