AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2017 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai passed in Consumer Complaint nos. CC/03/142, CC/03/143 and CC/03/144.
The appellant was OP no.4 in the original complaints filed before the State Commission. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that earlier opposite party no.4/ appellant was a proprietorship concern though later on it was converted into a partnership concern. Partner of the partnership firm has already filed three appeals bearing nos. 2506 to 2508 of 2017 against the same impugned order of the State Commission.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that even though the written version was filed by OP no.4/ appellant herein, at the time of final hearing the counsel for the appellant was not present and only the counsel for the complainant was heard. It is further stated that the appellant was suffering from Kidney disease and was undergoing dialysis and a medical certificate has been filed in support of this fact. This appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 455 days. In the application for condonation of delay it has been stated that the appellant has been suffering from Kidney disease and was undergoing dialysis on regular basis.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not been made a party by the partner who has filed the appeal no. 2506 to 2508 of 2017 against the same impugned order of the State Commission.
So far as condonation of delay in filing the present appeals is concerned, the main ground taken by the appellant is that the appellant was suffering from Kidney disease and was undergoing dialysis on regular basis. In this regard, the appellant has filed a medical certificate issued by Dr Niranjan Kulkarni of Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Institute that the appellant was suffering from Kidney disease. Apart from this, discharge summary report dated 25.11.2016 has also been enclosed. It is seen that all the medical papers attached relate to the years 2016 except for the certificate which has been issued on 18th March 2019. Thus, the position from 2016 to March 2019 is not clear and no supporting documents have been submitted. Clearly the whole period of delay is not explained. Moreover, the appellant was fully aware of the complaint cases filed by the complainant as the appellant had filed the written statement in these complaints. The appellant should have monitored the progress of these complaints. Thus it is clear that the appellant did not pursue the complaint cases as OP no.4 and also did not come to file these appeals in time.
Special limitation periods have been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, its Rules 1987 and its Regulations 2005 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down 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 filing appeals and revisions 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 the consumer Foras."
Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-
"4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).
In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.
Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay".
In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court observed:-
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition".
In the present case, it is clear that the appellant has not acted with reasonable diligence in prosecution of his appeals. Clearly, the negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides are imputable to the appellant in filing the present appeals. In my view, the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay cannot be considered as sufficient cause for condoning the huge delay of 455 days. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the first appeal Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2019 also stand dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to move an application for impleadment in FA nos.2506 to 2508 of 2017 filed by the partner of the partnership firm.