Haryana

StateCommission

A/991/2016

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNEHRI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

03 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           991 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       19.10.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         03.08.2017

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited, A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered at Parsvnath Tower, near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi -110032 through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Madan Dogra, Deputy General Manager.

Also At

Parsvnath City, Sector 8, GT Road, Sonepat, Haryana.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

Sunheri Devi wife of Prem Singh, resident of Village Ugra Kheri, District Sonepat presently at Gali No.8, Near Suraj Petrol Pump, Vikas Nagar, Murthal Road, Sonepat.                  

                   Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Ms. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                

Present:              Sh. A.S. Khara, Advocate for the appellants.

                             Sh. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited and its functionary-opposite parties (for short, ‘developer’) are in appeal against the order dated February 26^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Smt. Sunehri Devi-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“        Thus, taking into consideration the above said law of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the view that since there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, thus, they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the entire deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its deposit till its realization.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.75000/- for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”  

2.      Parshant Pilania booked a plot measuring 400 sq. yards in the year 2005 with the developer.  He deposited Rs.5,50,000/- with the developer. Thereafter, the complainant got the booking transferred in her name.  She paid Rs.11,00,000/- to the developer.  The developer did not allot any plot to the complainant. Hence, she filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. 

3.      The developer has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 200 days delay in filing the appeal. The grounds taken in the application are as under:-

“4.     The impugned order was pronounced on February 26^th, 2016.  The same was prepared by the office attached to the District Forum on March 01^st, 2016 and was issued and delivered to the advocate of the appellant at Chandigarh on March 10^th, 2016.

5.      That the counsel for the appellant conducing the said complaint before the State Commission collected the certified copy of the impugned order and forwarded it to appellant company, which was received on or about March 20^th, 2016.

6.      The appellant upon receipt of impugned order, in order to discuss the case internally collected all the papers related to the case and forwarded to its advocate at New Delhi in the last week of April, 2016 for seeking an opinion for filing an appeal.”

7.      The appellant’s counsel at New Delhi recommended for an appeal in the matter.  Thereafter, the appellant company asked for the complete set of documents from its counsel at Patiala, which was received by the appellant company only in the last week of June and same was forwarded to the counsel at New Delhi for drafting an appeal in the second week of July, 2016.

8.      The appeal was drafted and circulated in the first week of September, 2016 and same was approved by the legal cell of the appellant company only in the first week of October, 2016.  The signed copies of appeal, applications and demand drafts statutory deposit were received by the appellant’s counsel only on October 12^th, 2016.  Thereafter, the captioned appeal is being filed with a delay of 196 days.”      

 

4.      Learned counsel for the developer has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the developer.

5.      A 30 days period has been prescribed in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’), for filing appeal against the order of the District Forum. However, the proviso contained 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 period prescribed. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, because it would vary per facts and circumstances of each particular case.

6.      It is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly. Similar view dovetails from the following authoritative pronouncements:-

7.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“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 right must explain every day’s delay.”

8.      In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 414 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the “sufficient cause” for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay. Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.

9.      Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in 2017 (2) CPR 241 (NC)–M/s Supertech Czar Suites Vs. Gautam Mishra and Anr. observed as under:-

“Bearing in mind the broad principles laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, I am of the opinion that the explanation furnished by the appellant is absolutely unsatisfactory and the appellant has failed to make out any cause, much less a sufficient cause, for condonation of the aforestated inordinate delay in filing the appeal.”

 

10.    In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications filed on frivolous grounds are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

11.    In the case in hand, the ground taken in the application is manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency.  To accept such ground as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance.  So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 200 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

12.    Even on merits, there is no force in this appeal.  Indisputably, the plot was booked in the year 2005.  There is nothing on record to show that an attempt was ever made by the Developer to offer possession to the complainant. The Developer has not been able to show any justifiable reason not to issue allotment letter to the complainant. The Developer is trying to feather its own nest, that is, to make profit, for itself, at the cost of others. It will be travesty if the complainant is made to suffer for the deliberate, inaction and negligence of the Developer.  Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on both the grounds, that is, being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 03.08.2017

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK