National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Taneja Developers & ... vs Kuldeep Singh Minhas on 14 March, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1015 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 19/02/2016 in Complaint No. 56/2014 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. M/S. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 9, KASTURBA MARG, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. KULDEEP SINGH MINHAS S/O. SH. SARMUTH SINGH, R/O. H NO. 2066, 1ST FLOOR, SECTOR-71, MOHALI PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Karan Minocha, Advocate Mr. Preet Oberoi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Dhawan, Advocate Dated : 14 Mar 2019 ORDER The dispute relates to 2014, we are in 2019.
1. Learned counsels for the appellant - builder co. and the respondent - complainant were heard. The material on record was perused. Specifically, the impugned Order dated 19.02.2016 of the State Commission and the application for condonation of delay were perused.
2. To begin with, the application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal was considered.
3. This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 19.02.2016 of the State Commission with self-admitted delay of 80 days. (The Registry has reported a delay of 101 days).
4. The State Commission vide its said Order dated 19.02.2016 had allowed the complaint:
8. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant and order the refund of the entire deposited amount by the complainant with the Ops of Rs. 17,34,375/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit till its actual payment. The complainant is also awarded rupees one lac for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- is further awarded as costs of litigation. The compliance of the order be made by the Ops within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(para 8 of the State Commission's Order)
5. The appeal has been filed with admitted delay of 80 days. The stated reasons for delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned in paras 3 to 11 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below:
3. It is humbly submitted that the facts germane for decision of the present Application is as follows:-
(i) The present impugned order dated 19.02.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 56 of 2014 by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab has been received in the office of the Petitioner on 10.04.2016.
4. It is humbly submitted that the office of the Petitioner herein received the certified copy of the impugned order dated 19.02.2016 on 10.04.2016 from the Ld. State Commission, Punjab after the same was dispatched on 04.04.2016 from the Ld. State Commission.
5. It is submitted that upon receiving the copy of the impugned order in the office of the Petitioner, the Petitioner sought to get the internal and relevant documents of the present matter from the regional office of the Petitioner situated in Chandigarh, which were received in and around 25th April, 2016.
6. It is submitted that after receiving the said relevant documents and the impugned order the legal manager of the Petitioner company perused the order passed by Ld. Commission and took a decision to assail the order dated 19.02.2016 as the same was passed without any authority or jurisdiction. The relevant papers and impugned order was received in the office of the counsel for Petitioner in an around first week of May, 2016.
7. It is submitted that the Counsel's of the Petitioner were in the process of shifting their office when the said documents along with the impugned order were received. It is submitted that in the course of shifting the office, certain papers including the papers of the present matter were inadvertently misplaced by the office clerk of the Petitioner's counsel.
8. It is submitted that during the course of the summer vacation of 2016, the counsel was updating their list of work to be done, when it came to light that the papers of the present matter were misplaced during the course of shifting of office.
9. The Petitioner were informed about the inadvertent error by the office clerk which resulted in misplacing the papers and delay in filing of the present Petition. The Petitioner was requested for providing an extra set of the papers, which were received after the same could again be retrieved from the regional office of the Petitioner.
10. The counsel for the Petitioner upon receipt of the second set of documents of the present matter has immediately stepped on to the said matter and is filing the present Petition with a justifiable and inadvertent delay of 80 days.
11. It is submitted that the Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss / damage in case the present Application is not allowed. There is no loss which will be caused to the Respondent. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent.
PRAYER In the light of the above stated facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to pass an Order:-
A. Condoning the delay of 80 days in filing the present Petition;
(paras 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 of the application for condonation of delay)
6. The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The normative ideal period for disposing of an appeal is 90 days (section 19A of the Act). The period of limitation to file appeal is 30 days (section 19 of the Act). This appeal has been filed with (further) admitted delay of 80 days.
7. The stated reasons for delay, as reproduced, verbatim, in toto, in para 5 above, point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the appeal.
8. No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible.
9. This bench however wants to also satisfy itself that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. The State Commission has but ordered the builder co. to refund to the complainant the amount deposited by the complainant with it (Rs. 17,34,375/-), with interest (@ 10% p.a.), compensation (Rs. 1,00,000/-), and cost of litigation (Rs. 25,000/-). It is noted that the said amount of Rs. 17,34,375/- was deposited by the complainant with the builder co. from 2008 onwards; the builder co. did not provide any (firm) date of possession of the subject plot to the complainant; the builder co. cancelled allotment of the subject flat vide its letter dated 07.05.2011; it did not refund the deposited amount, with or without deduction/s, to the complainant; the complaint was filed with the State Commission on 20.03.2014; the decision of the State Commission was pronounced on 19.02.2016; the first appeal before this Commission was filed on 19.08.2016; no refund, with or without deduction/s, has been made by the builder co. to the complainant till today (i.e. till even 14.03.2019; the date of arguments). Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the impugned Order of the State Commission on merit, this bench but does not find any reason visible to convince it that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. On the contrary, it finds the conduct of the builder co. to have a bad air.
10. The application for condonation of delay, being unconvincing and devoid of merit, is dismissed. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed on limitation.
The bench may add that during the course of arguments on the application for condonation of delay, learned counsel for the builder co. also inter alia made certain submissions apropos the merit per se in the impugned Order of the State Commission. This bench however has not gone beyond 'limitation' into 'merit'. It accordingly finds no need to, and has not, critiqued the submissions apropos merit per se.
11. Needless to add that the State Commission shall undertake execution of its Order as per the law.
12. A copy of this Order be sent to the State Commission by the Registry within ten days.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER