State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Kartik Bhatt Executive Director Of ... vs Mr.Suresh Ahuja And Ors on 29 June, 2022
MA-19-22 IN A-19-24
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
MA/19/22 IN APPEAL NO.A/19/24
Mr.Kartik Bhatt
Plot no.263, Swastik Sadan
8th Road, Khar west
Mumbai 400 052 ...........Applicant/appellant
Versus
1.Mr.Suresh Ahuja
R/o.Flat no.301, "A" wing
Jolly Bhavan No.3 Co-op.Hsg.Society Ltd.
Dr.Ambedkar Road, Khar west
Mumbai 400 052
2.The Jolly Bhavan No.3 Co-op.Hsg.Society Ltd.
Through its Chairman & Secretary
Plot no.661, Corner of 16th Cross Road &
Dr.Ambedkar Road
Khar west, Mumbai 400 052
3.Saranga Estates Pvt.Ltd.
RNA Corporate Park
Next to Collector's office
Kalanagar, Bandra (East)
Mumbai 400 051 ............Respondents
BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade President
Smt.S.T.Barne, Judicial Member
PRESENT: Ms.Yogesh Naidu -Advocate @ Mr.Digambar Thakare -Advocate for
applicant/appellant
Mr.Jayesh Hemrajani-Advocate h/f. Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate
for respondent no.1.
ORDER
(29th June, 2022)
1
MA-19-22 IN A-19-24
Per Hon'ble Smt.S.T.Barne, Judicial Member
1. The applicant- Mr Karthik Bhatt has preferred this application for condonation of delay, which has been caused in prefering appeal against the judgment and order passed by Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, in consumer complaint no.208 of 2012 decided on 5th August, 2017.
2. It is the contention of the applicant that the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, has passed the order on 5 th August 2017. He received copy of said order on 30th January 2018. There is 247 days delay in preferring appeal.
3. It is the contention of applicant that appeal was supposed to be filed within 30 days as per Consumer Protection Regulations. The opponent no.1 company, who was always handling the litigation was obliged to file an appeal. However, no appeal was preferred by opponent no.1 company. As the applicant is retired, and had no control over the same, the delay has been caused.
4. The applicant with subsequent application has filed application to produce additional document in support of his application and made additional submission. It is at page no.33 of appeal compilation. Therein, he has mentioned that he was never Director of opponent no.1-M/s.Saranga Estate Private Limited Company. He retired from services in the year 2014. He further added that he is senior citizen and retired person and suffering from Epilepsy and diagnosed with Inguinal hernia on left side. In view of these illnesses, he has been advised for extreme caution in all types of movements and to maximum bed rest. In support of it, he has produced the medical certificate dated 22nd February 2019 with some treatment of Lilavati Hospital in the month of January, 2019 and one medical certificate dated 2nd December, 2017.
2MA-19-22 IN A-19-24
5. The learned Advocate for applicant relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Indusind Bank Limited & anr. v/s. Sanjay Ghosh" and submitted that the question of limitation is not to be examined with a view to decline the condonation, but to do substantial justice.
6. He has placed reliance upon another judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others vs. Respondent Katiji and others" and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that 'refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties'.
7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for respondents/original complainants has filed reply on behalf of respondents at page no.27 to delay condonation application and also filed reply to the application filed to produce additional document by applicant, which is at page no.48. It is the contention of respondents that the applicant failed to give valid reason for causing delay of 247 days in preferring appeal, which is essential to consider to condone the delay. The applicant is claiming that he was Executive Director of M/s.Saranga Estate Private Limited. He has filed written statement and affidavit of evidence in the complaint. He has given false affidavit contradictory to his contention in the written statement. The medical certificates produced by applicant are of prior to January 2018 and after receipt of order till filing the appeal, there is no certificate produced by the applicant. He has defended the complaint on behalf of opponent no.1, through out till decision. And after passing the order, he is claiming that he is retired and he has no control over the company to prefer appeal within time. Hence, he has prayed for 3 MA-19-22 IN A-19-24 dismissal of application for condonation of delay.
8. The learned advocate for respondent no.1 has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Oriental Aroma Chemicals Limited vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation", wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes the period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.
9. In the matter of "Anshul Aggarwal v/s. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority" the Hon'ble Apex Court observed 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 filling appeals and revision 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 Consumer Fora.
10. In the matter of "Cicily Kallaracal vs. Vehicle Factory", the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "cause shown for not approaching this court within limitation is stated that the petitioner was not physically fit and for some days remained in hospital. The cause shown is not sufficient as it was not necessary for the petitioner to come here personally. Condoning such an inordinate delay, without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this court in place of 4 MA-19-22 IN A-19-24 period prescribed by the legislature for filing the petition."
11. Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of "Kadam Brothers and Developers vs Umesh Ganpatrao Sathe", has observed that "the petitioner has made vague averments in his application for condonation of delay with regard to his ill health. It is well settled proposition that if sufficient cause is not proved, nothing further has to be done. The application has to be dismissed."
12. It is important to note that the complaint is filed against M/s.Saranga Estate Private Limited and the present applicant-Mr.Kartik Bhatt is an Executive Director of the said company. It reveals from the judgment that this applicant signed the written statement and affidavit and agreeent. It is submitted that this applicant has through out defended the complaint.
13. Perused the record. It reveals from the judgment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the complaint was filed by respondents against M/s.Saranga Estate Private Limited as opponent no.1 and the present applicant is opponent no.2 as Executive Director and the developer. It reveals from the record and as submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that the opponent no.2 (present applicant) has through out defended the complaint till the decision. And it reveals from the admission of applicant in the revision petition itself that opponent no.1- M/s.Saranga Estate Private Limited has not filed any appeal. And he has submitted that he is not Director of opponent no.1- M/s.Saranga Estate Private Limited. He is retired and due to his illness, it was beyond his control to prefer appeal within time.
14. For these submissions, he has submitted additional affidavit and certain documents. From the list of Directors, he tried to emphasis that his name is not in the list of Directors since 2003. He was only an employee. However, he has not produced any documents to show as to when he was engaged for services and when 5 MA-19-22 IN A-19-24 he retired from the services.
15. Secondly, the applicant/appellant received copy of the judgment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 30/01/2018. He has filed the appeal on 05/11/2018. However, if we peruse the documents regarding medical treatment, the certificate is of December 2017 and the medical papers of Leelavati Hospital are of January 2019. There is no document/paper of medical treatment between aforesaid period. Moreover, the application for condonation of delay is vague. It is simply mentioned in the application that as he is retired and due to his illness, he could not file the appeal within limitation. And subsequently, by way of filing an application for condonation of delay, additional document and affidavit, it is tried to fill up the lacuna. Still, there is no explanation or reason, regarding the delayed periof of 247 days, as rightly pointed out by learned advocate for respondents/original complainants.
16. Therefore, relying upon the cases cited by learned advocate for respondents/ original complainants, stated supra, we are of the opinion that when there is no reason or explanation given for such a huge delay of 247 days, for not availing the remedy within time. Moreover, in the cases under Consumer Protection Act, which expects for expeditious remedy, if such huge delay is condoned, the very purpose of the object behind the Act will be frustrated.
17. Hence, in the given circumstances, in distinguishing from the facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon by the applicant, are not helpful to support his contention. Hence, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. Hence, the order:-
ORDER
1. Misc.application no.MA/19/22 for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.6
MA-19-22 IN A-19-24
2. Consequently, appeal no.A/19/24 does not survive for consideration.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
[Justice S.P.Tavade] President [Smt.S.T.Barne] Judicial Member Ms 7