ORDER BELOW MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.185 OF 2014 SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY FOR FILING FIRST APPEAL NO.479 OF 2014
Per – Hon’ble Smt. Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member
Being aggrieved by an order dated 10/10/2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.279 of 2011, the Applicants/Appellants (original Opponents) have preferred an appeal bearing No.479 of 2014. However, there is a delay of 138 days for filing the appeal. Thus, the Applicants/Appellants, by filing present miscellaneous application, have prayed for condonation of delay for filing the appeal.
[2] In the application for condonation of delay, the Applicants/Appellants have stated that the Non-Applicant/Respondent (original Complainant) had filed a Consumer Complaint No.279 of 2011, which was contested the Applicants/Appellants by filing their written version. Said consumer complaint was decided by the learned District Forum by an order dated 10/10/2013. Counsel for the Applicants/Appellants collected the copy of the said order on 01/11/2013 and forwarded the same to the office of the Applicants/Appellants. After receipt of the order, the Executive Engineer, Nasik approached their Junior Law Officer at Nasik. Junior Law Officer forwarded the matter with a letter dated 14/11/2013 to the office of the Legal Advisor, Kalyan Zone. Thereafter, the Legal Advisor, by a letter dated 09/12/2013, intimated to the Junior Law Officer that that an appeal should be filed through Adv. L. R. Mohite. Further, in the application for condonation of delay, the Applicants/Appellants have stated that the said matter is pertaining to Sub-Division, Igatpuri. It is contended that Assistant Engineer of Sub-Division, who was looking after the matter was suspended on 12/12/2013 and, therefore, the appeal remained to be filed. It is stated that delay in filing appeal is not deliberate or intentional. According to the Applicants/Appellants, they have very good chances of success in the appeal. On these main grounds, the Applicants/Appellants prayed that the delay may be condoned.
[2] Non-Applicant/Respondent vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay by filing his reply on 17/10/2014 and denied that the Applicants/Appellants have sufficient reasons to condone the delay. It is contended that an attempt is made on the part of the Applicants/Appellants to waste the valuable time of State Commission. According to the Non-Applicant/Respondent delay is intentional and it is only to harass the old aged farmer of 82 years. In the reply, Non-Applicant/Respondent states that there is a delay of 188 days. According to the Non-Applicant/Respondent if, the delay is condoned, great injustice and loss will be caused to him.
[3] I have heard at length learned counsel Adv. Sandeep S. Jinsiwale on behalf of the Applicants/Appellants and the Non-Applicant/Respondent in person on the application for condonation of delay and with their help I have also carefully perused the material placed on record.
[4] Applicants/Appellants have challenged the order dated 10/10/2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik in Consumer Complaint No.279 of 2011. After receipt of copy of the order under challenge, the Applicants/Appellants ought to have filed an appeal within a period of thirty days. However, there is a delay of 138 days on the part of the Applicants/Appellants. Main reason put forth by the Applicants/Appellants is that the Assistant Engineer of the Sub-Division who was looking after the matter was suspended on 12/12/2013. It is our common knowledge that due to absence of one officer in a Government department, work does not stop and any other person can discharge duties assigned to such person as an in-charge. However, learned counsel for the Applicants/Appellants have made out a case and urged that the Applicants/Appellants have a hope to succeed in the appeal. Applicants/Appellants have an appealable and arguable question which is involved in the consumer complaint filed by the Non-Applicant/Respondent. In the appeal, the Applicants/Appellants want to challenge the status of the Non-Applicant/Respondent as a ‘consumer’, within meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the status of the Applicants/Appellants as the ‘service providers’. Jurisdiction of the District Forum is at task. Question of law is involved in the appeal. If, the delay is not condoned, Applicants/Appellants will suffer irreparable loss. On the other hand, if the delay is condoned, the Non-Applicant/Respondent will get an opportunity to put-forth his case on merits. In compliance with earlier order passed by this Commission, granting ad-interim stay to the execution of the order under challenge, Applicants/Appellants have already fulfilled the conditions imposed by this Commission and they have deposited the amount, as awarded by the District Forum. Delay caused in filing the appeal does not appear to be intentional and no malafide can be attributed to the Applicants/Appellants. Moreover, it is settled principle of law through various judicial pronouncements that while imparting justice much importance cannot be given to technicalities and as far as possible a case should be decided on merits. Further, inconvenience, if any caused to the Non-Applicant/Respondent can be compensated by saddling the Applicants/Appellants with reasonable costs. Hence, even though the Non-Applicant/Respondent has vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay, for the reasons stated in the application, the same deserves to be allowed.
With this view of matter, following order is passed:-
ORDER
Miscellaneous Application No.185 of 2014 seeking condonation of delay of 138 days in filing First Appeal No.479 of 2014 is hereby conditionally allowed. Consequently, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the Applicants/Appellants, jointly and severally, to the Non-Applicant/Respondent within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order, delay in filing appeal stands condoned. Payment of costs is condition precedent.
Subject to payment of costs for condonation of delay, now list this appeal for hearing on admission on 19/03/2015.
Pronounced on 10th February, 2015
