AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the material available before us in the appeal paper book.
THERE is also an Appeal being No. 1920/2003 which is filed by the appellant herein against the order passed by District Forum, Raigad, in an execution proceeding adopted by the original complainant against the appellant/org. O.P. for non-compliance of its order, which is impugned in the appeal herein, the fate of which would hang upon the result of the appeal herein. Appellant herein is the original O.P. and respondent is the original complainant. (For brevity''s sake, hereinafter parties will be referred in the judgment with reference to their said status in the complaint.)
O.P. has challenged the order dated 17.1.2002 passed by the District Forum, Raigad holding the O.P. being deficient in not honouring her contractual, as also statutory obligation of handing over possession of the premises to the complainant in a reconstructed building and so holding has ordered to hand over the possession, also pay Rs. 500/- per month towards the rent, as also payment of compensation as mentioned therein.
WHEREAS as stated second appeal being No. 1920/2003 has also been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Raigad dated 15.2.2003 at the stage of execution in the said appeal. There is also another order dated 17.12.2003, which the District Forum has passed under Section 27 (as amended) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is also an application moved being M.A. No. 3391/2003 seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. We first take up the delay condonation application as filed.
THE impugned order of this appeal as stated is dated 17.1.2002, whereas appeal herein has been filed on 19.12.2003. Thus there is a delay of 682 days in filing this appeal. Presently we keep aside the other appeal being No. 1920/2003. One Mr. Dilip V. Lulla son of the O.P./appellant has filed affidavit in support of the delay condonation application and in paragraph 2, this is what it is stated: "2. I state that the earlier Lawyer Mr. Shaikh, residing at CBD-Panvel, deceived the applicant and myself by misrepresenting that an appeal is filed and stay order is obtained from this Hon''ble Court."
In the memo of appeal, this aspect of engagement of Mr. Shaikh has been stated. We are of the view that such an inordinate delay has not been explained by assigning sufficient and cogent reason. In the first instance, full name and particulars of the Advocate concerned have not been furnished. Nor any data made available of the date when he i.e., said Advocate was instructed and who instructed and what steps O.P. took to pursue the matter for nearly two years. Averments appearing in the affidavit are delightfully vague on these material aspects.
THAT being so, we hold that such an inordinate delay has not been explained at all. In this respect we wish to refer to the judgment of the State Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Tarini Nikhare in Misc. Application No. 1539/2002 in Appeal No. 1214/2002 decided on 24.3.2003, in which we have held that the delay in filing the appeal has to be explained by assigning sufficient and cogent reason supported by the relevant evidence in that respect.
PARTIES get right to file the appeal, which is a statutory right. Here remedy of appeal available is under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides 30 days time for filing appeal. Proviso of the said section makes exception that in a given proper case, if sufficient cause being shown, the delay can be condoned. However, as stated, this is not the position in the matter herein. That being so, we hold that since the delay has not been explained, we hold that appeal as filed is hopelessly time-barred and on the ground alone is liable to be dismissed in limine. ORDER 1. The appeal being No. 1919 of 2003 stands dismissed. 2. Appellants shall pay cost in both the appeals herein to the respondent quantified at Rs. 3,000/-. 3. Consequently M.A. No. 3391/2003 also stands rejected. 4. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties.
Appeal dismissed.