Haryana

StateCommission

A/868/2015

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM BHALLA - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

Appeal No.868 of 2015

Date of the Institution:12.10.2015

Date of Decision: 30.11.2016

 

Parsvnath Developers Ltd., A company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, Having its Registered Office at Parsvnath Tower, near Shahadara Metro Station, Shahadara, Delhi-110032. (Through its  Authorized Signatory Mr. R.C Gupta, General Manager)

Corporate office at: 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                                                .….Appellant

Versus

 

Ram Bhalla, Karta Ram Bhalla and sons, HUF, L-24, Mahipalpur Extension, NH-8, Dehli, at present resident of House No.25 R, Model Town, Rewari, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   

 

Present:-    Mr.A.S. Khara, , Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, MEMBER:

 

Challenge in this appeal against the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, whereby complaint No.441 of 2011 was filed by respondent-complainant has been accepted and following relief was granted:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the opposite party to refund all the amounts received from the complainant, from time to time with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of respective receipts till payment i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- received on 11.04.2006 and Rs.50,850/- received on 19.11.2007 and Rs.7,790/- received on 19.11.2007. The complainant is also allowed lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.5500/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses against the opposite party. The compliance of the order is to be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which all the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 16% p.a. from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days till payment”.

2.      There is delay of 635 days in filing of present appeal. It is well settled principle of law that the delay can not be condoned on the ground of equity of generosity and the delay as to be condoned if “sufficient cause” is shown by the appellant. In the present case the appellant has taken the plea that after receiving the copy of the impugned order the same was sent to the higher authorities for seeking approval for filing the appeal before the State Commission. The file has to pass through various channels and during this entire official process delay of 36 days in filing the present case has been occurred. In our view this is not a “sufficient cause” to allow the application for condonation of delay.

A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

3.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

      In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“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 the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides 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.”

         

    Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 held as under;

“We have considered   the respective    submissions.  The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The   legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that   they    do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same   time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.”       

    In (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. Hon’ble Apex Court has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed 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”.

 

These views are also fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.307 of 2012 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Gurgaon Vs. Santosh Shukla decided on 17.10.2012.

4.      Taking into account the pleas raised by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay and the settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 635 days in filing of the appeal. Hence, the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant is rejected.

5.      Even on merits, there is no force in this appeal, the appellant-opposite party failed to start construction within the stipulated period as alleged by the respondent-complainant. The appellant-opposite party even failed to refund the amount received from the complainant. In the absence of the cogent evidence the appellant-opposite party has not proved his case. Learned District Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant.

6.      No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out.

7.      Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed on both the grounds i.e. limitation as well as on merits.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

November 30th, 2016

R.K.Bishnoi,     Judicial Member     Addl.Bench

Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member, Addl.Bench

 

R.K.