National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Manavshakti Gruh Nirman Sahakari ... vs Marotrao Nagorao Gomase on 6 August, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2013 (From the order dated 30.03.2012 in First Appeal No.A/07/1064 of the State Commission, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR) WITH IA/3436/2013 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY Manavshakti Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Through its President, Sheikh Mehmood Sheikh Mehboob R/o/ Old Bhandara Road, Nagpur 2. Manav Shakti Housing Developers Co. Through its President, Sheikh Mehmood Sheikh Mehboob R/o/ Old Bhandara Road, Nagpur Petitioners Versus Marotrao Nagorao Gomase R/o Plot No.7, Rani Sati Layout Katol, Tq. Katol, District Nagpur Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. M.R. Khan, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 06.08.2013 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. The case of the petitioner was dismissed in default by the State Commission. There is delay of 218 days in preferring the revision petition for setting aside the order passed by the State Commission. The impugned order, dated 30.03.2012, runs as follows:-
Present :
None for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER (DELIVERED ON 30.03.2012) PER SHRI S.M. SHEMBOLE, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant as well as his counsel are absent. None for the Respondent is present. As both parties are absent since long, on 17.12.2011, notice was issued to them but no report is received. On perusal of the office copy of the notice, it reflects that it was issued on the correct address of the parties, as shown in the appeal memo. Therefore, it will have to be presumed that the appellant as well as Respondents are served with notice. But nobody turned up. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in default. No order as to costs.
2. The delay has been explained in Para Nos.3 & 4, of the application for condonation of delay, which are reproduced herein, as under :-
It is submitted that on 30.03.2012, the counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants was busy before the Honble High Court, Nagpur Bench, and on account of inadvertence or oversight, could not mark the cause list and therefore, the matter came to be dismissed in default. Apart from this, the applicant is also suffering from various from various ailments and infirmities and due to severe Astama, diabetic and High Blood Pressure, which were beyond the control of the applicant and therefore, the applicant could not attend the matter before the Honble Commission at Nagpur. There was no deliberate intention on the part of either counsel or the applicant for not attending the matter. The applicant has a good prima facie case in his favour and the Honble Commission was also pleased to grant interim relief in favour of the applicant. On each and every occasion, the applicant had attended the matter, only on account of inadvertence or oversight, on 30.03.2012, the applicant could not attend the matter, resulting therein the matter came to be dismissed in default which has caused miscarriage of justice to the applicant. The applicant undertakes to attend the matter on each and every day in the event of restoration of the aforesaid appeal, in the interest of justice.
4. The applicant on account of genuine, pressing and compelling circumstances, could not prefer the revision application, well within time, which was beyond his control, on account of his illness. There is hardly delay of 176 days for preferring the revision application. The delay, if any, may kindly be condoned, in the interest of justice.
3. While paras 3 & 4, read in conjunction with impugned order, noted above, it appears that, on 17.12.2011, the notice was issued to the petitioner, at the correct address. The application is silent about that notice. The said notice, dated 17.12.2011, is presumed to be served on the petitioner. He has not explained as to why he could not appear before the State Commission from 17.12.2011 to 30.03.2012. The counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that he has placed on record the Medical Certificate and Discharge Summary of Mr. Sheikh Mehmood Sheikh Mehboob, which go to show that he was admitted on 20.03.2012 and was discharged on the same day, i.e., 20.03.2012. The originals of the same are not filed before us.
Only photocopy of the computer print-outs of those documents are placed on file. The prescription issued by Dr. Nitin Tiwari, dated 15.03.2012 was also placed on record. Out-Patient Bill has also been placed on record.
It explains that Sheikh Mehmood was not well from 15.03.2012 to 20.03.2012. Much reliance cannot be placed on these documents, because they do not explain 218 days day-to-day delay. Moreover, the Registry has counted the delay from 18.07.2012, which comes to 218 days. In case, the delay is counted, w.e.f.
17.12.2011 or 30.03.2012, delay comes to more than 250 days, which is the actual delay in filing the revision petition. The petitioner has received notice for 30.03.2012, but he did not appear before the State Commission.
4. It is also interesting to note that Manavshakti Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., the petitioner, does not have only one official. Sh. Sheikh Mehmood Sheikh Mehboob, is its President. This is an indisputable fact that the petitioner Society is a registered Society. There must be other officials, besides the President of the Society. Their posts were never disclosed. Even if it is assumed that the President was not well, the case could have been pursued by any other responsible official of the Society. No explanation is forthcoming.
5. There is inordinate delay in filing this revision petition. The delay to the extent of 176 days to 250 days, cannot be condoned.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act and proviso to Section 15 of the CP Act, 1986, is in pari material. A bare look at Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it plain that the material part of the language of the proviso to Section 15 of the CP Act, 1986, is in pari materia therewith. Therefore, it would be beyond caisil that it would be incumbent upon the petitioner to explain each day of delay, beyond the terminus line of the prescribed period of limitation.
6. The expression sufficient cause, cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act and CP Act.
There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one, for the purpose of delay of condonation. We do not find any such sufficient cause stated in the application and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. This view was taken in various authorities.
7. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that 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 orders of the Consumer Foras.
8. The same view was also taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.
9. For all these reasons, we hereby dismiss the revision petition, with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which be paid to the Prime Ministers Relief Fund, towards Uttarakhand Tragedy, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The cheque/demand draft will be given to the Registrar of this Commission, who will transmit the same to the Prime Ministers Office. Registrar to see compliance of the order and report.
....
(J.M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(DR.S.M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER dd/16