This First Appeal, under Section 19 read with Sections 21(a)(ii) & 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by a Real Estate Developer, namely, Parsvnath Developers Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order, dated 17.05.2017, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 1 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint, directing the Appellant herein to pay to the Respondents/Complainants a sum of ₹33,38,873/-, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till realization, besides ₹25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and ₹10,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which the entire amount would carry interest @ 18% p.a. 2. On 05.06.2008 the Complainants had booked a flat, admeasuring 1900 sq. ft., with the Appellant in its project, christened as “Parsvnath Preston” at Sonepat, Haryana. On 16.07.2008 the Flat Buyers Agreement was entered into between the parties. According to the said Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be handed over within 36 months, with grace period of six months. Though the Complainants had deposited a total sum of ₹33,38,873/- with the Appellant, the possession of the flat in question was not handed over to them, despite their repeated requests. In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein. 3. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the State Commission, as noted above, allowed the Complaint, issuing the afore-noted directions to the Appellant. 4. Hence, the present Appeal. 5. It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 203 days in filing the same. An Application, seeking condonation thereof, has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 4 – 8 of the same, the Appellant has furnished the following explanation for the delay: “4. The Appellant came to know about the passing of this order only after receiving the notice of execution petition on 06.11.2017. 5. That the Appellant thereafter immediately approached the local counsel at Chandigarh for getting the copy of the order. It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellant has not received the certified copy of the impugned order till date. However, the present appeal is being filed on the basis of the copy of the impugned order obtained from the website of confonet. 6. That the Appellant upon receipt of internet copy of the Impugned Order on 13.11.2017, in order to discuss the case internally forwarded the copy of order to its advocate at Delhi immediately for seeking an opinion for filing an Appeal. 7. The Appellant’s Counsel at New Delhi asked for complete sets of documents related to the matter from the legal Cell of the Appellant Company, which could be provided to the Counsel only in the first week of December as the complete case file of the lower court was lying with the local counsel at Chandigarh. In the meanwhile, the Appellant Counsel Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj Advocate at Delhi suffered severe heart stroke, for which, he took bed rest for considerable period. As such the Appellant had no option except to engage another counsel for filing the aforesaid appeal. Accordingly the Appellant sent all the relevant documents in the third week of December, 2017 to another lawyer who has filed the present appeal. 8. The Appeal was thereafter drafted and circulated in the fourth week of December, 2017 and same was approved by the legal Cell of the Appellant Company only in the fourth week of December, 2017. The signed copies of Appeal and Application were received by the Appellant’s Counsel only in the fourth week of December, 2017. Thereafter, the captioned Appeal is being filed with a delay of 195 days.” 6. It is trite law that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour. It is equally well settled that when a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be scrupulously applied, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty. Bearing in mind these broad principles, we proceed to examine the explanation furnished by the Appellant for the afore-stated delay. 7. It is evident from the impugned order that being an ‘oral’ order, it had been pronounced by the State Commission in the presence of Counsel for the parties, including the Counsel for the Appellant. Since the order was against the Appellant and the directions issued had to be complied with within a specific time-frame, it is beyond our comprehension that the Counsel, who was representing the Appellant, would not inform the result in the case to his client, viz. the Appellant. In such circumstances, the Appellant would not wait for the certified copy of the impugned order from the State Commission to decide the future course of action. Since a limited period of 30 days is available for filing the Appeal before this Commission, the Appellant could have ascertained about the status of the certified copy or even download the order from the internet, which is stated to have been done now and a copy of the impugned order has been retrieved from the internet on 13.11.2017, i.e. more than five months after the date of the passing of the impugned order. Further, no explanation had been sought from the Counsel for not informing the Appellant about the impugned order. It seems, the Appellant was not bothered by the directions issued to it and came out of its deep slumber only on 06.11.2017, when it received notice in the Execution proceedings, initiated by the Complainants for enforcement of the final order in the Complaint. In the absence of any supporting document, the plea that the Appellant had not received a certified copy of the impugned order also does not inspire any confidence. In any case, the fact remains that even after getting a copy of the impugned from the internet on 13.11.2017, the Appellant took 53 days in filing the Appeal before this Commission on 05.01.2018. In this view of the matter, it can safely be inferred that the Appellant did not show any seriousness in processing the matter expeditiously to ensure that the Appeal is filed within time. It is manifest that the Appellant is trying to gain time to comply with the order passed by the State Commission. 8. In the light of the afore-noted factual scenario, we have no hesitation in holding that not only the Appellant has failed to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of 203 days, the explanation furnished lacks bonafides as well. In our view, condonation of the said unexplained delay would amount to further harassment to the Complainants, who, despite having parted with a huge amount in the hope of getting a roof over their heads, almost a decade ago, are still not able to get either the flat or the money deposited. Accordingly, we decline to condone the inordinate delay of 203 days in filing the Appeal. In reaching the aforesaid conclusion, we have also borne in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained. 9. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed on the short ground of limitation. 10. The statutory deposit made at the time of filing of the Appeal shall stand transferred to the Consumer Legal Aid Account – NCDRC. |
