AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Applicant Opposite Party No.4 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC R/w Section 151 of CPC Praying for recalling or setting aside or modifying ex-parte order dated 07.12.2022 in CC No.1360 of 2016 on the ground that the Complainant suppressed material facts and knowledge of proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
It is manifest from the record that in proceedings in CC No.1360 of 2016 the Complaint was represented on notice before this Commission. On 25.01.2018 the Applicant was placed ex parte for the reason that despite notice being served through publication as per order dated 16.08.2017 and the service being complete the party did not enter appearance. This order was not challenged by them. The matter was finally heard on 23.08.2023 in their absence and final orders pronounced on 07.12.2022. A Miscellaneous Application has now been filed seeking to set aside this order or to recall it. No Application for condonation of delay has been filed with reasons for the delay. The Miscellaneous Application states that on approaching the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.1109 of 2023 it was directed on 24.04.2023 to mention before the executing court. No copy of this order is also placed on record.
The contentions of the Applicant have been considered. Order dated 25.01.2018 declaring them ex-parte were not challenged by them. Order dated 07.12.2022 was also not contested within the period of limitation provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No Application for Condonation of delay has been submitted along with the present MA. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows;
“24A. Limitation period (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: PROVIDED that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”
In the absence of any cause being shown to justify the delay, the MA is not sustainable. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a beneficial legislation intended for the benefit of the consumers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna (2021) 3 SCC 241 that the provisions of the Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation.
In view of the foregoing reasons, this MA cannot be considered at this stage as it is hopelessly delayed and barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Act. In view of the fact that the MA fails to cross the threshold of limitation, the same is dismissed in limine.