State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri.Santaji Nanaso Thorat And Ors vs Shri.Manikrao K.Kumbhar And Ors on 28 March, 2023
MA/22/146 A/W A/22/462
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Misc.Application MA/22/146 A/W Appeal No.A/22/462
Arisen out of order dated 31/12/2020 passed in Complaint No.323 of 2017 by the District
Commission, Satara)
1. Shri Santaji Nanaso Thorat,
Ex-Chairman,
Deeplaxmi Gramin Non-Agriculture Co-operative
Credit Society, Village Kalavade,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
2. Shri Balish Bapuso Thorat,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
3. Shri Vijay Babaso Thorat,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
4. Shri Dhananjay Pandurang Thorat,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
5. Shri Shivaji Yashwant Kumbhar,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
6. Shri Ashok Aabaji Gade,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
7. Shri Tanaji Laxman Pawar,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
8. Smt.Ranjana Baburao Mote, ....... Applicant/
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad, Appellant(s)
District Satara.
1
MA/22/146 A/W A/22/462
9. Shri Santaji Bimrao Thorat,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
Versus
1. Shri Manikrao Khashaba Kumbhar,
R/o at Belavade Budruk, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
2. Shri Sujit Manikrao Kumbhar,
R/o at Belavade Budruk, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
3. Shri Ajit Manikrao Kumbhar,
R/o at Belavade Budruk, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
4. Shri Shivaji HIndurao Jadhav,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
.........Respondent(s)
5. Shri Tanaji Dinkar Pawar,
The Chief Manager,
Deeplaxmi Gramin Non-Agriculture Co-operative
Credit Society, Kalavade,
R/o at Post Belavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
6. Smt.Sulochana Dadasaheb Vaydande,
The Cashier,
Deeplaxmi Gramin Non-Agriculture Co-operative
Credit Society, Kalavade,
R/o at Post Kalavade, Taluka Karad,
District Satara.
BEFORE:
Justice S.P. Tavade - President
S.T. Barne - Judicial Member
For the Appellant(s) : Advocate Chandrakant Yadav.
2
MA/22/146 A/W A/22/462
For the Respondent(s) : Advocate Vivek Rane for Respondent No.5.
Advocate Dhananjay Rananaware for Respondent No.6.
ORDER
(28/03/2023)
Per Hon'ble Justice S.P. Tavade - President:
(1) The original opponents have preferred the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay.
(2) It is contended that the respondents had filed complaint against the present appellant which was decided on 31/12/2020. The applicants received the copy of judgment on 02/09/2021. Due to outbreak of Covid- 19 pandemic the applicant could not file appeal after receipt of copy of judgment. It is contended that the period of limitation during Covid-19 pandemic was exempted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is contended that the appellant was required to file appeal on or before 31st May, 2022. It was filed on 06/07/2022. So, there is delay of 37 days.
(3) It is contended that in the month of May, 2022 the appellants were not aware about filing of appeal within a period of limitation and were not properly advised. In the month of May,2022, the applicants got contact number of their advocate. They had telephonic discussion about filing of the appeal. During the month of May, there was vacation. Hence, advocate was not available. The applicants were short of money. They arranged the money and deposited the statutory amount in the District Commission and sent all papers to their Advocate, who prepared the appeal and thereafter filed the same along with delay condonation 3 MA/22/146 A/W A/22/462 application.
(4) It is contended that the circumstances were beyond the control of the applicants, hence, they could not file the appeal within time. It is contended that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and hence, they prayed for condonation of delay.
(5) Notice of this application was issued to the respondents. They appeared and filed their reply. It is contended that the applicants are Agriculturists but they are educated. They are Directors of Co-operative Credit Society and they are running said Society. They have knowledge of the legal formalities for filing appeal. The applicants were represented by advocate in the District Commission. They were aware of all the consequences of the result. It is denied that the applicants were facing financial crises. It is contended that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is contended that the application be rejected.
(6) Heard advocate for the applicants and Respondent nos.2 and 3 on delay condonation application. The District Commission passed the order in Consumer Complaint No.323 of 2017 on 31/12/2020. Certified copy of the judgment was ready on 02/09/2021. It was received by the applicants on 08/09/2021. Covid -19 Pandemic started in the second week of March, 2020 and it was continued till end of 2021. It is also admitted fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has excluded the period of limitation from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also extended the period of 90 days from 01/03/2022 and it was ended on 29/05/2022. So, it was expected from the applicants to file appeal on or before 29/05/2023. But, it was filed on 06/07/2022. So, the delay was not of 37 days but more than 117 days. Sometimes period of delay does 4 MA/22/146 A/W A/22/462 not matter. The Courts are required to consider the cause of delay. The applicants came with a story that in the month of May, 2022 they were in search of their Advocate. Ultimately, they contacted their advocate but he was out of town. The said fact cannot be considered because the applicants received the copy of the judgment in the month of September, 2021. They could have contacted their lawyer to whom they had engaged in the District Commission. But, no steps are taken to that effect.
(7) It is also case of the applicants that financial condition was not good.
Therefore, they could not deposit the statutory amount in the District Commission. Similarly, they were not in a position to bear the expenses of litigation. But, the said fact has no merit because the applicants are the Directors of the Financial Institute - Deeplaxmi Gramin Non- Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society. The said financial institute had accepted the huge amount towards fixed deposits from the original complainants. The applicants are running Pat Sanstha since long. They were holding position as a Chairman, Vice Chairman and Directors, etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that they were laymen and were not knowing the legal formalities of filing appeal. Similarly, the applicants were running the financial institute and they were having different independent source of income, so, it cannot be said that the applicants were having financial crunch and therefore, they were prevented from talking to their advocate or depositing the statutory amount in the District Commission. Therefore, the reasons given by the applicants for delay are not sufficient to condone the delay.
(8) The advocate for the applicants has relied on the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Max New 5 MA/22/146 A/W A/22/462 York Life Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Sanjeet & Ors., reported in 2017(3) C.P.R. 756, wherein it is held that the Petitioner had explained the delay properly as he had not received documents within time and therefore, he could not give instructions. But, in this case the applicants did not contact their Lawyer though they received copy of judgment and they waited for 6 to 7 months to contact the Lawyer.
(9) He also relied on the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V/s M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123, wherein there was delay of 83 days in approaching the Court against the dismissal of the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. It was contended that there was non-action on the part of his Advocate. The applicants therein also complained about the conduct of his advocate who appeared before the Consumer Forum. Therefore, delay was condoned. In the present case, there are allegations against the advocate or conduct of the advocate. In fact, the applicants were reputed persons in Village. They run financial institute and they failed to contact their advocate in time. Therefore, the judgment cited is not applicable to the facts of present case.
(10) In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the applicants have not given cause, much less the sufficient cause. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Miscellaneous application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. In the result Appeal does not survive for consideration.6
MA/22/146 A/W A/22/462
(ii) Parties to bear their own costs.
(iii) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 28th March, 2023.
[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [S.T. Barne] Judicial Member emp 7