Back
R.K. Bhagtani
MA-20-76
Page 1 of 3
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.
Misc. Application No. 76 of 2020
[Virtual Hearing]
Court No. 1
Pranlal P. Khatri,
Post at Padamala,
Tal. And Dist: Bhuj Kutchh.
...Applicant
Vs.
1. Othavhari Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Satyam Tower Kalpatru Road,
Vijaynagar, Bhuj Kutchh.
2. Leeladhar Hirjibhai Dama,
Satyam Tower Kalpatru Road,
Vijaynagar, Bhuj Kutchh.
3. Rajubhai Tak,
Satyam Tower Kalpatru Road,
Vijaynagar, Bhuj Kutchh.
4. Hareshbhai Soni,
Satyam Tower Kalpatru Road,
Vijaynagar, Bhuj Kutchh.
...Respondents
Before: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President
APPEARANCE: Mr. Anand Parikh, advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. J. Mansuri, advocate for the respondents.
ORDER PER: By Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President
Date:- June 08, 2021.
1. This is an application filed by the applicant under section 5 of
the limitation Act to condone the delay of 73 days.
Details
DD
MM
YY
Date of Judgment
08 06
2021 Date of filing
27 01
2020 Duration
12
04 01
R.K. Bhagtani
MA-20-76
Page 2 of 3
2. Heard Mr. Anand Parikh, ld. advocate for the applicant. And
Mr. S. J. Mansuri, advocate for the respondents.
3. Facts of the application and arguments.
3.1. The applicant had filed complaint under section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents before
the CDRF, Bhuj Kutchh vide consumer case no. 244 of 2016.
The said compliant was partly allowed vide order dated
15.10.2019. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order
passed by the CDRF Bhuj Kutchh in Consumer case no. 244 of
2016, the present applicant want to file an appeal under section
15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He has to file an
appeal within 30 days but he could not filed appeal in prescribed
time limit but the delay is cause of 73 days in filing the appeal
therefore, this delay condonation application is filed.
3.2. It is the case that applicant is able to get certified copy of
order 22.10.2019 and certified copy of documents was received
on 4.12.2019. Thereafter applicant has approached advocate for
further course of action. Advocate has get the copy of order,
complaint memo and documents and prepared the appeal memo.
Therefore, delay is caused of 73 days.
3.3 L. A. for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
prima facie case with the substantial question are involved in
and applicant is likely to be succeeded. That if delay is not
condoned, applicant has to suffer huge loss and he will not get
justice.
4. Reply of the opponent and submissions.
4.1 The notice was duly served to the respondents through
RPAD. Respondents have appeared through learned advocate
Mr. S. J. Mansuri who has filed written statement against the
application.
4.2 ld. advocate for the opponent no. 1 has argued that the
applicant has not made out any case to justify condonation of
delay, there is no reasonable excuse or well explain reasons to
condone the delay. He has further submitted that applicant has
not good ground to condone delay. That the applicant was
negligent and careless delay cannot be condoned. Respondent
has also relied upon the judgment reported in II (2013) CPJ 311
(NC). Hence, advocate for the opponent requested to reject the
application with cost.
R.K. Bhagtani
MA-20-76
Page 3 of 3
5. Merits of the case: This court has considered following
aspects.
(A)
That the applicant has submitted that they have prima
facie case and they are likely to succeeded.
(B)
It is also submitted that the substantial questions are
involved, delay is required to be condone for cause of justice.
(C)
That the applicant has received the free certified copy of
the order on 22.10.19.
(D)
This commission has also considered the ratio laid down
by the honourable Supreme Court of India in case o
