DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.04.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 300 of 2011 by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the complaint of the complainant was disposed of and the OP was directed to refund an amount of Rs. 10 lakh to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of the realization; OP was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony, frustration and anguish alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 2 lakh. 2. The brief facts are that the complainant, Ashok Goyal, booked a flat on 22.2.2006 by paying advance money of Rs. 4 lakhs to M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd./OP. Vide letter dated 12.11.2010, he was allotted flat No. W7-0703. The total cost of flat was Rs.29,29,000/- and till 25.2.2011, the complainant paid Rs.10 lakh. The OP issued demand letter dated 24.08.2011 for the payment of Rs.23,38,926/- before 6.9.2011. It was alleged by the complainant that he went to OP on 5.9.2011 with a cheque of Rs.23,38,926/-. One employee, Mr. Sahil Bhatia of OP informed him that his flat stood cancelled already. It was also alleged that Mr. Saurabh Vij, another representative of OP snatched the original demand letter from the complainant and altercation took place. The OP did not receive the said cheque. 3. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint on 14.09.2011 before Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘State Commission’) and prayed to hand over the possession of the flat after accepting a cheque as per demand letter and Rs. 2 lakh towards mental agony and harassment. 4. The OP filed a written version and resisted the complaint. The OP however, has admitted the letter of demand issued to the complainant but denied the incident which took place later on. The OP never refused to take the cheque but due to default on the part of the complainant, the registration of the flat was cancelled. The State Commission based on the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund Rs. 10 lakh alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, Rs. 5 lakh for mental agony and Rs. 2 lakh as a cost. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, OP filed this instant first appeal before us. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties. There is a delay of 315 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant/OP submitted that the delay was procedural delay. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted that the huge delay not to be condoned and the appeal shall be dismissed. We have perused the application for condonation of delay. The reasons stated therein are that certified copy of the order, which was received on 5.6.2015, was not brought to the notice of the concerned person in the legal cell because of an inadvertent error on the part of front desk of appellant/company. The order was returned to the front desk in the third week of July, 2015. It is further stated that the appellant/company has multiple offices across the country and each office receiving multiple documents each day, the error on the part of the front desk to send the legal document to some other department was an inadvertent and bona fide error. Counsel further submitted that legal department received the application in August, 2015 and it was forwarded to the concerned superior for necessary action and the decision was conveyed in the last week of August, 2015 to assail the said judgment before the National Commission. Thereafter, further delay from August, 2015 to 8.4.2016 (the date of filing of this appeal), was due to certain issues in the office of learned counsel. The counsel relied upon the judgments of Central Bank of India vs. Jagbir Singh 2015(3) ABR 780, Chandan Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 920, Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Orissa State Co-operative Bank IV (2012) CPJ 310 (NC). 7. In our view, the facts of above referred judgments are not similar to the facts of the instant case. Considering the entirety of the facts and the story narrated in the application for condonation of delay, we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant. The reasons stated are not justifiable and do not deserve condonation of delay. 8. In the catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission, the delay without explanation of sufficient cause has not been condoned viz. Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC). Also, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent case Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. 9. In our view, the huge delay was due to own peril of OP/appellant itself. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone such huge delay, which would cause further harassment to the already victimized, helpless complainant, who had bona fidely invested his hard earned money. 10. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we hereby dismiss first appeal. |
