National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Simran Cooperative Housing Society ... vs 1. Nagesh Sidramappa Upase on 17 March, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 914 OF 2010 (Against the order dated 19.11.2009 in Appeal No. 188/09 and Misc. Appl. Nos.306 & 307 of 2009 of the State Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai) Simran Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Through its Secretary Mr. Sanay Sitaram Bhosale Plot No.3/3, Sector-28, Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra ........ Petitioners Vs. 1. Nagesh Sidramappa Upase 2. Panattaparpil Warki Jose 3. Ashok Puraji Solanki 4. Jaywant Parshuram Gharat ( all residents of Simran Apartments Plot No.3/3, Sector-28, Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra ........ Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. R.K. Adsure, Advocate Dated : 17.03.2010 ORDER
PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDNG MEMBER Through this petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner who was the opposite party before the District Forum and appellant before the State Commission seeks to assail the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal No. 188/09 and miscellaneous application Nos. 306 & 307 of 2009.
By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the miscellaneous applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and stay of the order passed by the District Forum and in consequence dismissed the appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions and perused the record.
3. The counsel would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice because order came to be passed without hearing the say of the petitioner on his applications and in the appeal. It is true that order came to be passed in absence of the petitioner or his counsel but it was due to the non appearance of the appellant or his counsel at the time of hearing of the appeal and the applications. Therefore, it is fallacious to argue that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to have his say in the appeal. We may notice that even in absence of the petitioner, the State Commission has considered the miscellaneous application no. 306/09 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and has answered the same by giving the cogent reasons as under:
There being delay in filing appeal. Misc. Application No.306/2009 is preferred to condone the delay. It is alleged by the applicant / org. O.P.-appellant that it received a copy of the impugned order / award on 16.09.2008 and its Committee in its meeting dated 27.09.2008 decided to communicate the said order to the respective flat owners to get repaired their terrace i.e. top of the shop area.
However, seeing that there is no response from the shop holders, its Managing Committee in its meeting dated 24.01.2009 decided to file appeal instead of paying compensation to the shop owners and therefore, there is delay in filing appeal. We find the reason given hardly offered any sufficient reason to get condoned the delay. The applicant/Society acted in its own wisdom to adopt different course to get comply the order instead of taking decision in time to file appeal.
Therefore, we find the delay being not satisfactorily explained. Misc. application No. 306/2009 deserves to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the said order of the State Commission on the strength of which it can be said that the said order is legally unsustainable. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances as noted above, the State Commission was fully justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and we do not see any illegality or material irregularity therein.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner-Society is in big financial difficulty and has no funds to comply with the directions contained in the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. He submits that members of the Society are not paying the monthly subscription towards maintenance etc., and, therefore, the Society is short of funds and will not be able to comply with the directions. We are not supposed to enter into that question.
However, we may simply observe that only order passed by the District Forum and direction given to the petitioner-Society was to repair the water leakage / seepage in the shops of the complainants and to pay a small compensation of Rs.8000/-. The petitioner-Society ought to have carried out the said direction of the State Commission instead of approaching the higher foras with appeals and revisions
6. In the result, revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed in liminie.
J (R.C. JAIN) ( PRESIDING MEMBER) (ANUPAM DASGUPTA) MEMBER Am/