State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Sai Laxmi Constructionsrep. By Its ... vs Sai Enclave Flat Owners Welfare ... on 11 February, 2011
FA BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.IA.No.277/2011 in FA (SR).No.7739/2010 against C.C.No.33/2005, District Forum, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. Between: 1. M/s. Sai Laxmi Constructions Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.V.Suresh Plot No.229, Sairamnagar, Karmanghat, Hyderabad. 2. M/s.Sai Laxmi Constructions Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.B.Niranjan Flat No.412, Revathi Towers Behind Fruit Market, Chaitanyapuri Kothapeta, Hyderabad. 3. Smt.G.Nagamani W/o.S.Bala Goud H.No.16-42, P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..Petitioners/ Appellants/O.Ps And Sai Enclave Flat Owners Welfare Association Rep. by its President, Mr.B.Rajender Reddy R/o.Flat No.301, Sai Enclave, Road No.1, Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondent: - QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN Oral order:(Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) *** Having heard the counsel for petitioners and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed at the stage of admission.
The opposite parties preferred this appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 18-1-2006 wherein a directions were given to rectify water leakages in corridors, walls, roofs and pipelines, to demarcate all car parking slots, hand over all legal documents including original bills, link documents, occupancy fitness certificates etc. to the President of the complainant association and to reimburse Rs.1,924/- towards municipality tax together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Along with the appeal, they filed an application to condone the delay of 1500 days almost 4 years on the ground that there was communication gap between them and the counsel and in fact they could know of the order only after receipt of N.B.Ws. in E.A.No.13/2006.
Considering the enormous delay, we see no reason to issue notice before admission, as there would not be any improvement in the case of the appellants in the teeth of their explanation for delay. Obviously in order to curb filing of cases without any basis the provision of admission is introduced lest it will be abuse of process of law. It is not their case that the copy of the order was not communicated to them or it was not received. All through they are represented by their counsel, who has received the order copy and also deposited Rs.6,000/- before the District Forum. It is not known as to what was the communication gap between them and their counsel. Para 4 of the order discloses that except filing counter, neither affidavit evidence nor any documents were filed. In fact, the appellants did not choose to contest subsequent to the date of filing of the counter. From this, it is apparent that the appellants did not evince any interest through out the proceedings. Now alleging that there was communication gap between them and their counsel, having filed counter, lacks bonafides on their part. There are no grounds much less bonafide grounds to condone the enormous delay of 1500 days.
It is well settled law that the parties seeking relief has to satisfy the court that he/she has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed and the explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 15(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. The discretion conferred on this court is a judicial discretion and is exercised to advance justice and even if there is a strong cause for acceptance of the appeal that would not be a ground for condoning the delay. Consumer Protection Act provides for speedy redressal to consumer disputes. It follows that the delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons given supported by material; and that the discretion for entertaining the appeals filed beyond the period allowed will not be exercised in a light and routine manner.
No useful purpose will be served even if notice is ordered except further delaying the matter. Moreover, provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be invoked as such for issuing notice before disposing of the matter. It is only principle of natural justice that could be invoked.
In the circumstances, this petition for condoning delay is dismissed and consequently the appeal (SR).No.7739/2010 is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
The petitioners/appellants are permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited towards statutory deposit.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.11-02-2011