Back
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD
COURT NO: 05
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2020
M/S. Kebison Paper Products
Through its proprietor,
Ms. Mittalben Prashantbhai Patel,
Office at:
Plot no 223, Paiki 2,
B/h Kailashdham Ashram
Modhera Road,
At post : Dediyasan
TA and Dist. Mehasana
…Appellant.
V/s.
Divisional Manager,
The New India Ass. Co. Ltd.
Shah Estate, outside Gopinala,
Dairy Road, Mehasana. …Respondent.
Coram: Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.
Appearance: Mr. D.N. Trivedi, Ld. Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. K.R. Saxena, Ld. Advocate for the respondent.
ORAL ORDER: [By Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member], Jan. 19, 2021
1. This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the
limitation Act to condone the delay of 98 days.
2. Heard, both the parties at length.
3. Facts of the application and arguments.
3.1
The present appellant had filed complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the present respondent
before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Mehsana bearing Consumer Complaint No. 138 of 2019. The said
complaint was allowed on 23.06.2020. Being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mehsana in C.C. No. 138 of 2019, the
present applicant wants to file appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was required to file an appeal
within the period of limitation but could not file the appeal within
prescribed time limit and delay of 98 days has been caused in
filing the appeal and, therefore, the delay condonation application
has been filed.
3.2
It is the submission of appellant that being a proprietor firm
obtaining opinion from advocates regarding scope of appeal and
therefore appellant could not be filed the appeal within the
stipulated time prescribed under the law.
3.3
Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant has prima facie case on merits and the applicant is
likely to succeed in the appeal. That if delay is not condoned, the
applicant has to suffer huge loss and will not get justice. It is also
argued that the applicant has made out sufficient cause;
therefore, this is a fit case for condonation of delay.
4. Reply of the opponent and submissions.
4.1
Notice has been duly served to the other side and on behalf of the
respondent; Mr. K.R. Saxena, Ld. Advocate for the respondent
submitted that the aforesaid delay of 98 days caused in filing the
appeal should not be condoned.
5. Merits of the case: This Commission has considered following
aspects.
(A) That the applicant has submitted that the applicant has a prima
facie case and it is likely to succeed.
(B) It is also submitted that as substantial questions are involved,
delay is required to be condoned in the interest of justice.
(C) That the time consumed from obtaining needed opinion from the
advocates the delay has been caused in filing the appeal.
6. I have considered the facts of the application, arguments of the ld.
advocates of both the parties and facts and circumstances of the case
and find that the applicant has sufficient cause for not filing the
appeal within prescribed time limit. At the same time opponent-
complainant is required to be compensated with cost. Hence, I am
inclined to condone the delay. Following order is, therefore, passed.
O R D E R
1. Application is allowed with cost.
2. Applicant shall pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to
opponent – original complainant as cost within one month from
today. If the applicant fails to pay the amount of cost, the
opponent is entitled to recover the said amount by filing
appropriate application under Section 71/72 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019.
Registry is direct
