Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/701

SHANTI MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SENIOR BUILDER PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 08.01.2015

First Appeal-701/12

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Smt. Shanti Mittal

W/o Sh. Satish Mittal

R/o 5/560, Indira Colony

Sonepat

                                                                                        …..Appellant 

 

Versus

M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

9, K.G. Marg,

New Delhi-110001

                                                                                     …..Respondent

CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(Salma Noor, Member)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant along with the appeal wherein prayer is made for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2.             It is stated that the impugned order was passed on 16.03.2012 whereas copy was received by the appellant in the second week of April, 2012. The appellant is a house wife. Her husband due to service obligations could not contact the lawyer for preferring the appeal. Moreover, the husband of the appellant was under the impression that the appeal was to be preferred within a period of 90 days. However, in the last week of July when her husband had contacted the lawyer, he came to know that limitation for filing the appeal was 30 days and not 90 days. It is alleged that the delay is not deliberate but due to the reasons stated above. It is prayed that delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

3.             Ld. counsel for the respondent has opposed the present application by filing a reply wherein it is stated that appellant has not  stated the no. of days of delay in filing the appeal. It is stated that the impugned order was passed on 16.03.2012 whereas the appeal was filed on 09.08.2012 and as per appellant he had received the copy of the order on 10.04.2012. In these circumstances, there is a delay of about 90 days in filing the present appeal. It is further submitted that the application is vaguely drafted. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is deliberate. It is submitted that the appellant has already received the amount which has been awarded in her favour vide the impugned order and the approach of appellant in filing the appeal is malafide.

4.             We have heard the submissions made.

5.             It may be noticed that there are blanks in the application about the number of days for which the appellant is seeking condonation of delay. The name of the advocate is also not mentioned in the application with whom it is alleged that the husband of appellant had consulted about the period of limitation for filing the appeal. Even the affidavit of the husband of the appellant is also not annexed. The application is drafted in a casual and negligent manner. The appellant has already received the amount awarded to her vide impugned order. The stand of the respondent that the delay is intentional and approach of appellant is also malafide has force in it as only after receiving the amount, the present appeal is filed.

6.             Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we find that the appellant has not been able to show the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.

                Application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

                Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.

                File be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member