BOMBAY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Poonam V. Maharshi, Presiding Member and
Dr. Satish A. Munde, Presiding Member
Krishna Milan Shukla – Appellant
versus
Tanaji Haribhau Mahabare and Ors. – Respondents
Misc. Application No.23 of 181 in
First Appeal No.23 of 331
(Arisen out of Order dated 12/01/2011 passed by the Thane Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, passed in CC/153/2009)
Decided on 24.10.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 27-A – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 14 – Limitation – Condonation of delay of 153 days in filing appeal – Inordinate delay not properly calculated – Handover peaceful & Legal possession of disputed shop – Compensation of Rs.1.50 lakhs & costs of Rs.5,000/- to complainant/respondent No.1 – Appellant skillfully avoided execution of judgment in Consumer Complaint – Appellant is trying to cover up himself under the ground of ill-health which may be for couple of weeks or months & trying to keep away to the Complainant from enjoying the fruits of judgment/consent term since 2011 till today – Appellant has challenged two impugned orders & trying to confuse bench so the bench may condone inordinate delay – Consumer Protection Act is a Special Law & provided 30 days period to challenge impugned order under Section 27-A of Consumer Protection Act – Once time has begun to run no subsequent disability to institute suit or make application stops it – Under Section 14 of Limitation Act bonafide litigation/proceeding in good faith is protected – Appellant neither honoured said judgment nor consent terms nor shown readiness & willingness to honour said judgment dated 12.1.2011 or consent terms & further conduct of appellant is so clear that he wants to further delay execution proceedings which is pending since 13 years – Benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act cannot be extended in present matter – Application for condonation of delay is rejected.(Paras 26 to 34)
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. Satish A. Munde, Presiding Member.—The Applicant/Appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay of 153 days (MA/23/181) in filing the Appeal No. 331/2023 arisen out of Orders dated 20/06/2019 and 20/10/2022 passed in Execution Application No. 17/2011 in judgment and order dated 12/01/2011 in CC No. 153/2009 by Additional District Commission, Thane at Belapur, wherein the Hon’ble District Commission issued Non-Bailable Warrant against Applicant / Appellant.
2. Heard advocates for Applicant/Appellant and Respondent No.1./ Complainant.
3. The Applicant/Appellant stated that the Applicant/Appellant has challenged the Impugned Order dated 20/06/2019 by way of filing the Criminal Application No. 1509 / 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay on 19/10/2019. The certified copy of said Order dated 20/06/2019 was received on 26/08/2019 and accordingly within limitation period of 90 days filed above numbered Criminal Application before Hon’ble High Court, Bombay as suggested by the Advocate on record there. The said Criminal Application was listed before the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay from time to time.
4. The Applicant/Appellant stated that meanwhile the whole Country was affected by the Covid 19 Pandemic. Thereafter in the year 2022, the Applicant/Appellant was arrested in a false case by Kamothe Police Station and during the enquiry the Applicant/Appellant was in Police Custody and subsequently in Judicial Custody for a period of 03 months 20 days. Accordingly, the Applicant/Appellant was granted Bail. The Applicant/Appellant stated that during his custody period the Applicant/Appellant had developed substantial
health issues and his health is drastically deteriorated. The Applicant/Appellant had lost his 25 kg wait and was hospitalized in ICU in JJ Hospital.
5. The Applicant/Appellant stated that since he was under custody, he would not have remained present before the Hon’ble Additional Thane District Commission on 13/08/2022, 25/08/2022, 20/09/2022, 20/10/2022, 21/11/2022, even if the Applicant/Appellant intended to come / attend. Resultantly, the Applicant/Appellant remained present through his Counsel and sought exemption. The District Commission had issued Non Bailable Warrant against the Applicant/Appellant vide its Order dated 20/10/2022. The said Order is a continuing Order of Order dated 20/06/2019. The Applicant/Appellant was released on Bail on 29/11/2022 from another frivolous Criminal matter. The Applicant/Appellant was in
Medical Observation and advised complete bed rest till the Applicant/Appellant undergo complete angiography with required angioplasty.
6. The Applicant/Appellant stated that thereafter only in the month of December 2022 the Applicant/Appellant contacted his Advocate on Record before District Commission in execution proceedings and appraised to the advocate about his health and condition. Accordingly, the Application of cancellation of NBW as per continuing Order dated 20/10/2022 was filed. The said Application is pending.
7. The Applicant/Appellant stated that the Applicant/Appellant accordingly met his Advocate on Record in the Month of January 2023 to find out complete solution to the hardship being caused to the Appellant at this stage, more specially without having any liability under the said Order except the compensation and cost amount, keeping aside the Consent Terms, without prejudice. Accordingly, the Advocate on Record suggested that an Appeal against 20/06/2019 as well 20/10/2022 need to be filed before Hon’ble State Commission since the Tier mechanism is provided for challenging the orders of District Commission before State Commission only and the Criminal Appeal before Hon’ble High Court need to be withdrawn which was filed by another Advocate. Accordingly, the Appellant met his Advocate on Record in Criminal Application pending before Hon’ble High Court and discussed the issue with him in the month February 2023. After a meticulous discussion it was decided to
(1) Appeal – Condoning delay without sufficient cause and proper justification would violate statutory provisions and show disregard for legislative intent.(2) Regardless of merit of a case, limitati....
Sufficient Cause – ‘Sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and the applicant must satisfy the Court that he wa....
The court affirmed that personal circumstances cannot justify excessive delays beyond statutory limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
The court upheld the rejection of a delay condonation application, emphasizing that insufficient reasons do not justify extending statutory limitations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.