Haryana

Panchkula

CC/99/2016

HARYANA OFFICERS COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S N.H CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD AND ANOTHER. - Opp.Party(s)

J.S RANA

04 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                         

Consumer Complaint No	:	99 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	29.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	04.05.2016

 

Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., GH-2, Shikhar Apartments, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector-5, Panchkula through its Secretary Col. S.P.Puri (Retd.)

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s N.H. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor Mr.Nitin, H.No.1704, Sector-21, Panchkula.

2.       Sunny Incharge, M/s N.H. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor Mr.Nitin, H.No.1704, Sector-21, Panchkula.

                                                                         ...Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Sh.Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the complainant. 

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Today the case is fixed for consideration on the admissibility of the complaint. Before issuing the notice, application for condonation of delay is to be decided firstly.
2. The complainant alongwith the present complaint has filed an application under Section 24-A of the Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 1008 days with the averments that earlier also he had filed a complaint in the instant matter and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.01.2012 with liberty to file afresh on some technical issues. After that the complaint was prepared and given to the associate counsel Sh.Randeep Singh Dhull for re-filing. The complainant was under the impression that the said advocate has re-filed the complaint but it came to their knowledge that the said advocate has shifted to Kaithal without re-filing the said complaint and he even had failed to hand over the brief of the original counsel. On receiving of original brief, the present complaint has been re-filed without any undue delay and the delay of 1008 days had occurred on account of bonafide error and no prejudice would be caused to the Ops if the delay is condoned.  
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has been heard and the material available on the case file has been perused.
4. Undoubtly, there is provision in the CP Act to condone the delay in filing the complaint but it was obligatory on the part of the complainant/applicant to explain the reasonable diligence as ignorance and carelessness is no excuse therefore, the complainant is not entitled for benefit of his own absence without any cause for condonation of delay, therefore the present application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of the judgments titled as Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court, 361 & R.B.Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108 wherein it has been held that It is however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party 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 S.5. 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 for consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry 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.  Since the complainant has failed to explain the reasons for not filing the complaint in question within limitation, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the present application deserves to be dismissed. On this point reliance can also be taken from case law titled as Truly Creative Developer Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhaveji M.Mange decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 27.04.2016. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Forum in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the complaint. No proper explanation has been given by the complainant for the delay except not filing of the complaint by advocate Sh.Randeep Singh Dhull, which is not sufficient, the complainant has failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons to condone the delay of 1008 days. On this point reliance can also be taken from case law tilted as M/s Gopal Ji & Company vs. M/s Oriental Insurance Company decided on 23.05.2014 in F.A. No.383 of 2014 by our Hon’ble State Commission wherein it has been held that No proper explanation has been given by the appellant for the delay except not properly conducting the proceedings by one of its employees and counsel, which is not sufficient, the appellant has failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons to condone the delay of 1069 days.
5. Hence, in view of above discussed factual as well as legal position, we are of the considered view that the complaint is not maintainable being filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed in limini being barred by limitation.
6. A copy of this order be sent to complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced      (S.P.Attri)                 (Anita Kapoor)          (Dharam Pal)

04.05.2016       Member                             Member                       President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                            

                                                          Dharam Pal                                                                                                President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P