APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON : 25^th MAY 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the impugned order dated 12.04.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 153/2014 filed by the present appellant Inderpal Singh Sidhu, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed in default.  The said order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the State Commission reads as follows:-

“No one has appeared on behalf of the complainant, though the complaint was called several times.  No evidence has been produced by him.  In these circumstances, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the complaint in default.”

2.       The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question saying that he had entered into an agreement dated 09.05.2011 with the respondent/Opposite Party/OP for the purchase of Unit 57, situated at Eldeco Greens, Jalandhar.  The respondent/OP had agreed to deliver the possession of the Unit by 26.05.2012.  However, on their failure to provide the unit as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the respondent/OP to hand over the physical possession of the unit and also to provide compensation on various grounds.  The said complaint was fixed for hearing on 12.04.2016, for which the main counsel had deputed a junior counsel to attend the same.  However, by the time the Junior Advocate reached the State Commission, the case had already been heard and the impugned order had been passed.  The Junior Advocate was informed by the staff of the Commission that the matter had been fixed for hearing on 27.05.2016.

3.       During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the Junior Advocate was late in reaching the State Commission due to breakdown of his vehicle on the way.  The said Junior Advocate was wrongly informed that the next date of hearing was 27.05.2016.  The counsel was, therefore, not aware of the impugned order, by which the complaint had been dismissed in default.  The learned counsel argued that the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal should be condoned and the complainant should not be allowed to suffer, even if his Advocate was at fault in some form or the other. 

4.       The learned counsel for the respondent/OP, however, vehemently opposed the plea taken by the appellant, saying that there was no valid explanation to condone the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal.  In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant had themselves stated that the certified copy of the order was delivered to the complainant on 05.05.2016 and hence, the plea taken by them about the next date being 27.05.2016 was wrong.  The appellant had further stated that time was taken to engage the services of counsel at Delhi and hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal.  However, the appellant had not been able to provide any cogent and convincing explanation for condonation of delay and hence, the appeal deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone.  Further, it was clear from their own version that Junior Advocate did go to the office of the State Commission on 12.04.2016 itself and hence, he was expected to be in the knowledge of the proceedings in the case.

5.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

6.       The main plea taken by the appellant/complainant states that the main counsel for the complainant had deputed his junior counsel to attend hearing before the Commission on 12.04.2016.  However, for the failure of the Junior Advocate to reach the State Commission in time, the matter was dismissed in default.  Further, it is also clear that a copy of the order was obtained by the appellant on 05.05.2016, still the appeal was filed on 2.11.2016, i.e., with a delay of 151 days.  The appellant has tried to explain that the delay was caused, as time was utilised in hiring the services of an Advocate at Delhi.

7.       The merits of the case as borne out from the consumer complaint indicate that the complainant had booked a unit with the OP Builder and entered into an agreement with them and also deposited some money.  The main allegation levelled in the complaint is that the OP Builder failed to provide the property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.

8.       Considering the entire facts and circumstances on record, it is clear that neither the main counsel nor his junior counsel could put in appearance before the State Commission in time, as a result of which the consumer complaint was dismissed in default.  It would be prudent, therefore, that the complainant/appellant should not be allowed to suffer on account of the fault on the part of the counsel.  Looking at the merits of the case as well, it is felt that it shall be in the interest of justice if the consumer complaint is adjudicated by the State Commission on merits.  This appeal is, therefore, accepted after condoning the delay in filing the same, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission, which is directed to proceed with the hearing of the complaint in accordance with law.