NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/2262/2017

M/S. SUSHEELA HOMES & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & 3 ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDEEP SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. S. JALAN & CO.

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2262 OF 2017
 
(Against the Order dated 28/07/2017 in Complaint No. 14/2017 of the State Commission Goa)
1. M/S. SUSHEELA HOMES & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & 3 ORS.
GOURND FLOOR, HOTEL NANISH F.L. GOMES ROAD VASCO DA GAMA
GOA
2. MR. DAMODAR V SALKAR
DIRCTOR, M/S. SUSHEELA HOMES & PROPERTIES PVT LTD GROUND FLOOR HOTEL MANISH F.L. GOMES ROAD VASCO DA GAMA
GOA
3. MR. NILESH D SALKAR
DIRECTOR, DIRCTOR, M/S. SUSHEELA HOMES & PROPERTIES PVT LTD GROUND FLOOR HOTEL MANISH F.L. GOMES ROAD VASCO DA GAMA
GOA
4. MR. ABHIJEET D SALKAR
GROUND FLOOR HOTEL MANISH F.L. GOMES ROAD VASCO DA GAMA
GOA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. SANDEEP SHARMA
S/O. MR. CHAMANLAL SHARMA R/O. B-3B, SUNNY VALLEY CGHS LTD PLOT NO 27 SECTOR12 DWARKA
NEW DELHI 110078
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Appellant :
Mr.Amit Agarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent :

Dated : 28 Feb 2018
ORDER

IA/17095/2017

        For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.  The Application is disposed of.

 

FIRST APPEAL

        Challenge in this Appeal, by a Real Estate Developer, namely, M/s Susheela Homes & Properties Pvt. Ltd., is to the order dated 28.7.2017 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, Goa (for short “the State Commission”) in MA (CD) No.16/2017.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Application filed by the Complainant seeking condonation of delay in filing the Complaint and has condoned the delay in filing the same. 

In the Application filed by the Complainant, on which the impugned order has been passed, it was stated that being the eldest son, he was involved in taking care of his aged parents, in particular attending to the medical emergency involving his 88 years old father, who had suffered a disc injury, the Complaint could not be filed within time.  It was also urged that since Developer had failed to provide the Occupancy Certificate and had not executed the Conveyance Deed in respect of the flat he had purchased from the Petitioner, it was a continuing cause of action and hence the Complaint was otherwise within the period of limitation, as stipulated in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”).

        Taking into consideration the aforesaid cause pleaded in the Application, the State Commission has reached the conclusion that the Complainant had made out a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Complaint and therefore, in exercise of the discretion vested in it under Proviso of Section 15 of the Act, has condoned the delay.

        Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the opinion that the Appeal is bereft of any merit.  Apart from the fact that non-supply of the Occupation Certificate and non-execution of the Conveyance Deed is a continuing cause of action, even otherwise, on facts at hand, it cannot be held that the State Commission has committed any illegality, legal or factual, in the exercise of the discretion vested in it to condone the delay, if any, in filing the Complaint.

        Consequently, the Appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.