SAMARTH CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. PUSHPA CHANDRAKANT MATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, we shall dispose of both the above mentioned First Appeals since both the cases relate to the same project of the Appellant and involve similar set of facts, agitate the same issues and seek the same relief. For the purpose of convenience, the facts are taken from First Appeal No.771 of 2021 which is taken as the lead case. Appellant has filed the present Appeal against the order dtd. 27/7/2018 in Complaint no.516 of 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Nashik (for short 'the State Commission') in Complaint No.517 of 2016 filed by the Respondent herein. The State Commission allowed the Complaint and directed the Appellant to refund to the Respondent/Complainant ?11 Lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit by the Complainant till realization; ?1 Lakh as compensation for mental pain and agony and ?20,000/- as litigation charges, within a period of one month from passing of the order. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal.

(2.) This Appeal has been filed with a delay of 1099 days. Alongwith the Appeal, IA 8576 of 2021 has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay.

(3.) It is stated in the Application that the Appellant received copy of the impugned order dtd. 27/7/2018 on 1/9/2018. The prescribed period of 30 days to file Appeal expired on 30/9/2018. It is stated that due to lack of correct guidance from their Advocate and the period of COVID - 19 Pandemic they could not approach this Commission on time. It is stated that meanwhile Mrs. Anita Pokle, Appellant No.1 discharged from the partnership firm by executing Dissolution of Partnership Deed dtd. 4/2/2016 and the charge of the project in question was taken over by Mrs. Vrushali Amrutkar, Appellant No.2. It is further submitted that since 2014 the health condition of husband of the Appellant No.2 started deteriorating day by day and therefore, he was unable to do his regular activities and needed 24 hours assistance and was operated in the year 2021, Appellant No.2 could not follow up with the case before the Forum below. It is submitted that since settlement talks were going on between them and the Respondent/Complainant, they did not approach this Commission within limitation. However, when the Respondent filed the Execution proceedings before the State Commission, they approached this Commission by filing this Appeal. It is prayed that in the interest of justice, the delay be condoned.