There is a delay of 80 days in filing the appeal, which is over and above the period of 30 days statutorily given to file the First Appeal.  Only reason given for condonation of delay is that some time was taken in convening the meeting of the members of the society to file the appeal and thereafter engage a counsel.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the cases in summary manner within a time frame, i.e., within 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken, and, within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken.  Where the statute has permitted only 30 days for filing the Appeal, the delay, nearly 3 times over the statutory period given for filing the Appeal, cannot be condoned until and unless some sufficient ground is shown.

We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed 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 the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained.  Relevant observations are as under:

“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.”

Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  

Even on merits, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the dispute raised by the appellant was not a consumer dispute.  112 members of Railwaymen’s Apna Ghar ‘C’ Group Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and 20 members of Railwaymen’s Apna Ghar ‘E’ Group Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., from one amongst themselves, appointed a Chief Promoter, who was supposed to render the accounts of duly elected ad hoc committee after formation of the society.  Allegedly, the Chief Promoter did not render the accounts faithfully or did not carry out the work entrusted to him.  State Commission has held that the complaint could be filed against the developer or the promoter and not against a person who was one amongst the appellants was to render the accounts of the society.  State Commission held as under :

“Looking to the nature of the relationship between the members on whose behalf consumer complaints are filed against the Chief Promoter, the Chief Promoter, obviously, was acting in the interest of Promoters or members of the proposed Society.  Further for and on behalf of those members, the Chief Promoter procured the land or the property and then entrusted construction to a contractor on behalf of the members of the proposed members.  The proposed members also understood the same very clearly as could be seen from the Agreement of Allotment of Flats, supra.  The proposed members agreed to give their respective contribution not only towards the construction, but also towards the outgoings on pro-rata basis and Chief Promoter was to act and receive those contributions on no loss nor profit basis.  Thus, it is amply clear that the Opposite Party/Chief Promoter was not acting on his own or in an individual capacity, but was acting in a representative capacity as Chief Promoter for and on behalf of the promoter/proposed members.  Therefore, element of hiring of any service of a Chief Promoter is absent in the instant case.”

State Commission has rightly come to the conclusion that the dispute raised by the appellants was not a consumer dispute and the complaint was not maintainable against Respondent No.1.  Respondent No.1 was not a service-provider, viz.a.viz., the appellant.

Dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

However, liberty is reserved with the appellant to seek redressal of its grievances, if so advised, by approaching the civil court for rendition of accounts along with an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.