Delhi

StateCommission

A/235/2017

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

23 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  23.05.2017

Date of Decision :  24.05.2017

Appeal No. 235/2017

 

(Arising out of the order dated 22.10.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 581/2008   by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Sh. Anil Kumar Goyal,

S/o Late Suraj Bhan Goyal,

R/o 1885,  Gali Lehswa,

Bazar Sita Ram,

Delhi-110006.                                                                                   ........Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1. Ansal Housing & Constructions Ltd.,

Regd. & Head Office,

15, UGF, Indra Prakash,

21, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2. M/s. Parsavnath & Associates Pvt. Ltd.,

G-2, Arunchal 19, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.                                             …….…Opp. Parties

 

CORAM

 

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

Present  :   Appellant in person.

 

PER  :  HON’BLE SHRI ANIL SRIVATAVA, MEMBER

 

          Aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2012 passed in CC No.581/2008 by the District Forum-VI, M-Block, New Delhi, the appellant has filed this appeal on 29.04.2017 praying for relief as contained in the complaint filed before the District Forum as indicated below:

          It is very humbly prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to allot a plot of land in any other scheme of the Opp. Party if the same is not available under the said Spring Valley Project at Shahpur at the same rate which prevailed upon at the time of booking dated 14.03.1998 of the plot or in case of non availability of the land the difference of the rates from the booking date and the rates prevailing today be given to the complainant in the interest of justice.

          Any other action as deemed fit may also kindly be taken against the above defendants / respondents.

          Heard the appellant present in person on admission of this appeal.

          Apparently this case is hopelessly time barred. Provisions of section 15  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is referred to as under:-

15.     Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

          Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

          The appellant has also moved an application for condonation of delay.  He has only pleaded that he was never aware of the order passed by the District Forum in this behalf. In my view this does not seem to be a proper ground to condone the delay. Sufficient reasons for condonation of delay has not been filed.

          In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1961 (SLT Soft) 51=AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed:

14.     “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a partly is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right.  The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction  vested in the court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for the condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done. The application for condonation  has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay.  This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope  of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is  shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the court may regard as relevant.”

15.     Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. II (1994) ACC 326 (DB)=AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that:

          “There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of its not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.”

16.     In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhanveshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)=I(2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court observed:

          “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained.  This is the basic test which needs to be applied.  The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development  Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has laid down that:

          “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.”

20.     Thus, the gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bona fides are imputable to the appellants. No sufficient grounds are made out to condone the long delay of 360 days in filing of the appeals. Applications for condonation of delay in such circumstances are not maintainable at all and the same stand dismissed.

          Thus gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bona fides are imputable to the appellants. No sufficient grounds are made out to condone the long delay in filing of the appeal. Application for condonation of delay in such circumstances are not maintainable at all and the same stands dismissed. Consequently the appeal being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed.

          I order accordingly.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.  A copy of this order may be sent to the District Fora for information.  File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)    

MEMBER          

                               

​