AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to interlocutory Orders dated 17.12.2015, dated 01.02.2016 and dated 11.01.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 500 of 2014.
We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party (the appellant herein) and for the complainant (the respondent herein). We have also perused the material on record, including inter alia the State Commission’s Orders dated 17.12.2015, dated 01.02.2016 and dated 11.01.2018, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the memorandum of appeal.
Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that though it had filed the instant appeal in challenge to three interlocutory Orders dated 17.12.2015, dated 01.02.2016 and dated 11.01.2018 of the State Commission, it is pressing its challenge only in respect to the last Order dated 11.01.2018 alone. He further submits that the appeal has been filed with delay of 472 days apropos the Order dated 11.01.2018 and requests that the same may be condoned.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has no objection to the delay being condoned and the matter being decided on merit.
In the interest of justice, having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel, in order to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal in respect of the Order dated 11.01.2018 is condoned.
The State Commission’s impugned Order dated 11.01.2018, challenge to which alone is being pressed on behalf of the opposite party, may be reproduced for reference:
“Mr. Mahesh Sahastrabudhe, Advocate present for complainants. Mr. Rahul Vardhan, Advocate present for opponent. Application filed by the opponent will be considered at the time of final hearing of complaints. Parties are directed to file their written brief notes of arguments as per Regulation 13(2) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005, at least two days prior to next date before the Registrar (Legal). All matters stand adjourned to 26/04/2018.”
Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that an application filed by it before the State Commission in respect of its objection re pecuniary jurisdiction has been ordered to be considered at the stage of final hearing though it ought to have been heard first since it had raised a preliminary issue.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the issue being as it may in any case the matter is now listed for final hearing and both parties have also been directed to file their respective briefs of written arguments in terms of Regulation 13(2) of The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The next stage in the proceedings is anyway going to be the stage of final hearing. As such the application regarding the objection on maintainability can be heard at that time itself.
Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that it may be made explicit that the State Commission will duly consider its application regarding pecuniary jurisdiction at the time of final hearing.
In the wake of the above submissions there appears to be no need in the present facts and context of the instant case to critique or examine the issue at any great length and the present appeal is disposed of with the direction that the application filed by the opposite party in respect of its objection on pecuniary jurisdiction shall be duly considered at the stage of final hearing which has already been reached.
The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.06.2023.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately. It is also requested to forthwith communicate this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.