LAWS(NCD)-2022-1-18

M/S. RAVI FOUNDATION Vs. BHAVESH S. SHETH

Decided On January 21, 2022
M/S. Ravi Foundation Appellant
V/S
Bhavesh S. Sheth Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Vandana Sehgal, for M/s. Ravi Foundation and Jayesh T. Shah and Mr. Arun Panickar, Advocate, for Bhavesh S. Sheth and Hardik S. Sheth and Mr. Viraj Kadam, Advocate, for Mangesh Tukaram Sawant, in both the appeals.

(2.) Aforementioned appeals have been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai, dtd. 23/12/2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 185 of 2010, partly allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties, jointly or severally to furnish a copy 'Occupancy Certificate " and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Flat no. 902, on the 9 th Floor of "Gaurav Palace ", constructed on C.T.S. No.100, S. No.96, Hissa No.3, Malad, situated at Kandivali, Taluka Borivali, district Mumbai to the complainants, to pay Rs.50000.00 as the compensation for mental tension and agony and Rs.25000.00 as the litigation cost to them. The complainants and the developer, both, have filed their separate appeals. As both the appeals arise out of the same order in one complaint, as such, it were consolidated and heard together.

(3.) The office has reported that First Appeal No. 249 of 2014 has been filed with the delay of 75 days. The appellants have filed I.A. No. 2629 of 2014, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It has been stated that the appellants had received certified copy of the impugned order dtd. 23/12/2013 on 7/1/2014 but Bhavesh S. Sheth (appellant-1) was suffering from Sciatica pain at that time and was advised for rest. On feeling better after 25/3/2014, he approached his counsel, then the appeal was drafted and the papers of the appeal were sent through post on 11/4/2014. Due to illness of appellant-1, the appeal could not be filed in time. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.