AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arguments heard.
Order after lunch.
ORDER (AFTER LUNCH)
Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Petitioner/OP against impugned order dated 11.03.2015 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short, ''State Commission) in First Appeal No. A/14/285.
Respondent/Complainant has filed a consumer complaint against Petitioner/Builder alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner for non-performance of certain works with regard to the construction in the housing society of the respondent.
The consumer complaint was opposed by petitioner before the District Forum.
District Forum vide order dated 26.12.2013 partly allowed the complaint of the respondent and passed certain directions against the petitioner.
Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which was not entertained vide the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
Hence, this revision petition.
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that non-payment of cost was not deliberate but inadvertently it remains to be not paid. Therefore, the State Commission ought to have granted the time to comply with the order but on the contrary dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for non-payment of cost.
It is well settled that as revisional court, the scope of this Commission is very limited and the petitioner has to point out as to whether the State Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction or it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it or has acted illegality or has committed any material irregularity. On our asking, learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any illegality, infirmity or material irregularity exercised by the State Commission. Be that as it may, the petitioner in its appeal filed before the State Commission has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay. Though, the petitioner has placed on record, the Memorandum of Appeal filed before the State Commission but has chosen not to file the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission.
The State Commission vide its order dated 22.12.2014 allowed the application for condonation of delay subject to cost of Rs.10,000/. Relevant portion of order dated 22.12.2014 read as under; Dated : 22/12/2014
ORDER
By passing separate order Misc. Application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the non-applicant/respondent/complainant within 15 days from the date of order. On payment of costs, appeal will be taken for hearing on admission on 03.03.2015.
Thereafter, on 03.02.2015 following order was passed; Dated : 3 February, 2015 rd
ORDER
Mr. Sunny D''souza is present for the appellant. He seeks an adjournment on the ground that his Senior is unable to attend this Commission today. Hence, matter is adjourned to 11/03/2015.
Thereafter, State Commission vide impugned order, declined to entertain the appeal and which read as under; "Adv. Pawan Patil is present for the appellant. This appeal has been filed along with delay condonation application. Said delay condonation application was decided on 22/12/2014 and delay was condoned subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of order. However, till today, that condition is not complied with. Payment of cost was condition precedent. As the condition imposed while condoning the delay in filing the appeal is not fulfilled within time limit, this appeal is not entertained and is filed. Pronounced
Dated 11 March, 2015." th
The record of the above proceedings of the State Commission, clearly goes to show that State Commission has shown much indulgence in favour of the petitioner. However, petitioner for reasons best known to her, has chosen not to deposit the cost within the prescribed period. Under these circumstances, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent/complainant. Even otherwise, while passing the impugned order, State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error nor there is material irregularity or ambiguity in the impugned order. The present revision petition having no legal merit is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in favour of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission within four weeks failing which she shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
List on 21.08.2015 for compliance.