IA No. 4354 of 2020, filed by the Petitioners/Complainants, seeking early hearing of the Revision Petition, is allowed and the Revision Petition is taken up for hearing. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Complainants against the Order dated 03.12.2019, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby while adjourning the matter for 18.02.2020, the State Commission, has condoned the delay of 55 days in filing the Appeal, with a direction to the Applicants, Respondents herein, to deposit cost of Rs.3000/- in the Legal Aid Fund of the State Commission. According to the Petitioners/Complainants, the Respondents herein were in the business of providing medical services in the field of Stem Cell Technology. On 08.04.2016 the Petitioners/Complainants, who were expecting their baby, had paid a sum of Rs.69,000/- to the Respondents for availing specialized medical services in the field of Stem Cell Technology. However, at the time of delivery of Petitioner/Complainant No.2, the Respondents did not remain present with the Expert for collection of the Sample, as promised. In response to the Legal Notice issued by the Petitioners/Complainants, the Respondent gave false reply. On 01.03.2017 the Petitioners/Complainants preferred a Complaint, bearing No. 45 of 2017, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum), praying for a direction to the Respondents herein to pay a total sum of Rs.13,14,764/- on several counts, which included refund of the amounts deposited by them with interest @ 18% from 08.04.2016 till the date of filing of the Complaint and compensation etc. On appreciation of material available before it, the District Forum vide Order dated 06.11.2017 came to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the Respondents in not collecting the Samples and had the Samples been preserved, then the same could be beneficial to the baby and his future life would have become healthy. Accordingly, while partly allowing the Complaint, the District Forum directed the Respondents herein to jointly and severally refund a sum of Rs.69,000/-, deposited by the Petitioners/Complainants, with interest @ 8% per annum from 08.04.2016 till actual date of payment, as also pay a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs as compensation for all type of physical, mental and financial loss and costs of the proceedings, within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the Order, failing which the amount of Rs.5.00 Lakhs would carry interest @ 10% p.a. When there was no compliance of the District Forum Order dated 06.11.2017 by the Respondents herein, who had obtained the certified copy of the said Order through their Advocate on 08.11.2017, the Petitioners/Complainants initiated Execution proceedings by filing Execution Application No. EA/18/1 before the District Forum on 04.01.2018. While this was so, on 03.02.2018 the Respondents herein preferred the afore-noted Appeal before the State Commission against the Order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the District Forum, however, with a delay of delay of 55 days. The State Commission vide Order dated 03.12.2019, while posting the matter for 18.02.2020, had condoned the delay of 55 days in filing the Appeal, by observing thus: “5) We have carefully gone through these judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the case of Collector Land Acquisition V/s Mst. Katiji and other Judgments. We have also gone through the judgments delivered by Hon’ble National Commission in which the parameters regarding the aspects to be taken in to consideration while dealing with the application for condonation of delay have come to be discussed and also reiterated. We therefore do not find it necessary to deal with all the judgments which have come to be cited at bar. It is now well settled by a catena of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as also of the Hon’ble National Commission that the delay in preferring the application, firstly must not be inordinate and secondly same should not be malafide in nature. It is also equally well settled that the applicant has to give satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application. In this backdrop, the present application for condonation of delay has to be examined. Applicant has clearly stated in the application that the delay of 55 days had occurred since the applicant was required to obtain necessary sanction from their higher authorities and this explanation to our mind cannot be termed as unreasonable or malafide as argued by Shri Lohiya, learned advocate for non applicant. During the course of argument Shri Lohiya, learned advocate has also placed on record plethora of authorities on various aspects of condonation of delay and we do not find it necessary to deal with all the authorities in view of the reasons already stated. Shri Lohiya, learned advocate for the non applicant has emphatically relied upon several judgments of Hon’ble National Commission so as to show that even short delay in filing the application has not been condoned liberally by the National Commission. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the parameters for deciding such applications are firmly settled and need no reiteration. Here in the present case, the applicant has given satisfactory reasons for the delay in filing the application. It is also submitted by Shri Wavikar, learned advocate for the applicant that awhile deciding application for condonation of delay, the aspect of doing substantial justice to the parties to the applicant cannot be lost sight of. On this aspect also the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given guidelines. 6) We are of the view that the application for condonation of delay has to be considered also keeping in view the fact that substantial justice also to be done to the parties. We are therefore of the view that the application for condonation of delay is accompanied with reasons which cannot be termed as unsatisfactory or malafide.” Aggrieved with the Order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioners/Complainants are in the Revision before this Commission. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Applicants and gone through the documents placed on record. Admittedly, there was a delay of 55 days in preferring the Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission is vested with the discretion to condone the delay in filing the Appeal or not. If, by taking into consideration the explanation furnished by the Respondents and in order to render substantial justice between the parties, the State Commission has condoned the said delay, it cannot be said that the State Commission was not justified in doing so. While exercising the discretion in such matters, it may not be appropriate to take a pedantic and hyper-technical view in order to reject the delay condonation application, more so, when the stakes involved in the case are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case (See: Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195). In the present case, the District Forum has directed the Respondents herein to refund a sum of Rs.69,000/-, deposited by the Petitioners/Complainants with interest @ 8% per annum and also pay a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs as compensation. In view of the same and the explanation furnished by the Respondents herein in support of the application, seeking condonation of delay of 55 days in preferring the Appeal, the State Commission was just in condoning the said delay. In view of the aforesaid discussion and bearing in mind the fact that the main Appeal is pending before the State Commission and the Order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the District Forum has not attained finality, the Petitioners/Complainants still have an opportunity to argue the case on merits before the State Commission. No ground is made out to interfere with the Order passed by the State Commission. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. |
