National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Alliance Buildwell Projects Pvt. ... vs Mr. Prakash Chandrani & Anr. on 11 March, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2013 (From the order dated 8.06.2012 in CC No. 109/2010 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) M/s. Alliance Buildwell Projects Pvt. Ltd. With its office at Prestige Tech Park Jupiter Block, 2nd Floor Marathahalli Sharjahpur Ring Road Bangalore 560 037 Rep. by its M.D. Manoj Nanduri Appellant/Complainant Versus 1. Mr. Prakash Chandrani S/o Moolchand Chandrani 2. Smt. Jyoti Chandrani Both R/o H.No. 13-6-463/A/23 Ashok Vihar Colony, Taalagadda, Hyderabad 500 067 Respondents/ OPs BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms. Kheyali Sarkar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 11th March, 2013 O R D E R
MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant against the impugned order dated 8.6.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, the State Commission) in C.C. No. 109/2010 Prakash Chandrani & Anr. Vs. M/s.
Alliance Buildwell Projects Pvt.
Ltd. by which, the complaint was allowed in part and appellant/OP was directed to refund Rs.26,10,964/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs.10,000/- as costs.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent agreed to purchase villas from OP for total consideration of Rs.87,03,227/- and made payment of Rs.26,10,964/- on different dates. OP was required to complete construction within 24 months, but as there was no construction activity at the spot even after lapse of 2 years and complainant came to know that OPs would abandon the project at Hyderabad, he filed complaint for refund of amount along with interest and damages. OP/Appellant contested the complaint and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed the complaint and directed, as aforesaid.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant at admission stage and perused record.
4. Appellant has filed application for condonation of delay along with appeal. Appellant has not mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that how many days delay is to be condoned. As per office report, there is delay of 120 days, but, in fact, there is delay of 175 days in filing appeal. Office has calculated period of delay on the assumption that certified copy was received on 18.9.2002, whereas perusal of certified copy reveals that free copy of the order was issued on 23.7.2012, which must have reached the appellant. Appellant has not mentioned in his application for condonation of delay the date of receipt of free copy and date of receipt of certified copy. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that there is delay of 175 days from the date of receipt of free copy in ordinary course of business.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that delay occurred on account of consent and suggestions from the various authorities and in procuring relevant documents, translation and typing of innumerable documents. Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the application for condonation of delay read as under :
That the appellant respectfully submits that the Appellant is a body corporate having a vast business and a huge share capital in the money market and the projects of the Company is spread over different states. Thus, it needs to follow a rigid protocol before taking any decision.
Besides, there are number of authorities whose consent and suggestions are required to be taken before proceeding with the litigation further. Consequently, the Appellant could not file the accompanying appeal before this Honble Commission within the prescribed time limit.
That the First Appeal filed by the Appellant requires to undergo a number of steps before getting finally ready for filing, e.g., procuring of relevant documents, translation and typing of innumerable documents.
Therefore, the First Appeal could not be filed within specific time as prescribed by law. Hence, the reason for the delay in filing the First Appeal is the procedure that has to be followed as a result of the internal hierarchy of the Appellant Company. First Appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period due to the aforesaid hardship. Hence, it is submitted further that the delay in filing of the above First Appeal is due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the Appellant. And only when the filing Authority got all the required approval, the Appellant has filed the above matter in the month of February dated 13.2.2013 with a delay of only days in filing.
6. No specific date has been given by the Appellant from which authority when suggestion was received and in such circumstances, there is no explanation at all what to talk of reasonable explanation for condonation of delay. As far as procuring relevant documents, translation and typing of innumerable documents is concerned, perusal of index submitted along with memo of appeal reveals that all the documents were in possession of the appellant and apparently no document was translated and wrong assertions have been made in the application for condonation of delay. In such circumstances, application for condonation of inordinate delay of 175 days is liable to be dismissed.
This view is further supported by the following authorities:
7. 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.
8. Honble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 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.
9. Honble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.
10. Honble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 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.
11. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed at admission stage barred by time as application for condonation of delay is being dismissed with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k