State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Raheja Dev. Ltd. vs Neena Thomas on 17 October, 2023
FA.NO.:180/2022 D.O.D.: 17.10.2023
M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. VS NEENA THOMAS
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 12.10.2022
Date of hearing: 12.05.2023
Date of Decision: 17.10.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 180/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED.,
W4D, 204/5, KESHAV KUNJ,
WESTERN AVENUE, CARIAPPA MARG,
SAINIK FARMS, NEW DELHI-110062.
(Through: Mr. Siddharth Banthia, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
MS. NEENA THOMAS,
C-72, MAHAVIR ENCLAVE-I, PALAM DABARI ROAD,
NEW DELHI.
(Through: Mr.Vivek Kumar, Advocate)
...Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 6
FA.NO.:180/2022 D.O.D.: 17.10.2023
M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. VS NEENA THOMAS
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Mr. Siddharth Banthia, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Vivek Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The Present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant impugning the Order dated 01.09.2022 passed by District Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 269/2021 titled 'Neena Thomas Vs. Raheja Developers whereby the Appellant's right to file the reply was closed on the ground that the Complaint Copy was received by the Appellant/Opposite Party on 07.02.2022 and the time to file the reply has passed.
2. The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was not able to file the Written Statement due to unforeseen circumstances. Further, it is submitted that the office of the Appellant/Opposite Party was functioning from work from home basis from 12.04.2021 till 01.03.2022 more so, many employees of the Appellant were detected COVID Positive. Lastly, it is submitted that for mistake committed by the counsel, interest of the party cannot be affected. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant has prayed that the Impugned Order dated 01.09.2022 be set aside. Reliance has been placed on Rafiq & Anr. Vs. Munshilal & Anr.
3. The Respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order. It is DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 6 FA.NO.:180/2022 D.O.D.: 17.10.2023 M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. VS NEENA THOMAS further submitted that the complete set of documents along with the complaint were collected by the Appellant on 07.02.2022 more so, the vakalatnama was also filed on the same date which was admitted by the Appellant. It is therefore submitted that the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. On perusal of the material on record, it is the case of the Appellant that the Appellant-company was not able to file the Reply to the Complaint before the District Commission due to unforeseen circumstances. Moreover, the office of the Appellant/Opposite Party was functioning from work from home basis from 12.04.2021 till 01.03.2022 more so, many employees of the Appellant were detected COVID Positive. Lastly, it is submitted that for mistake committed by the counsel, interest of the party cannot be affected. However, it is to be noted that the Appellant has not alleged any apparent error or material irregularity by the District Commission while passing the Impugned Order nor it is alleged that the District Commission has acted extra-judicially in contravention of the jurisdiction vested in it. A perusal of the record clearly suggests that the complaint alongwith documents were served to the Appellant on 07.02.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant failed to file the written statement within the the statutory period of 30 days and the right was closed vide order dated 01.09.2022.
5. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause to file the written statement after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 6
FA.NO.:180/2022 D.O.D.: 17.10.2023
M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. VS NEENA THOMAS
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause"
means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose."
6. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
7. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 6
FA.NO.:180/2022 D.O.D.: 17.10.2023
M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. VS NEENA THOMAS
"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same."
8. Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Appellant for the delay, according to us, the Appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent sufficient reasons to condone such delay. Resultantly, the District Commission was justified in closing the right of the Appellant/Opposite Party to file the reply.
9. Thus, we opine that District Commission has only exercised the jurisdiction vested in closing the right of the Appellant/Opposite Party to file the reply to DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 6 FA.NO.:180/2022 D.O.D.: 17.10.2023 M/S RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. VS NEENA THOMAS the Complaint and there is no material irregularity in the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the District Commission.
10. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016 in Consumer Complaint No. 269/2021 titled Neena Thomas Vs. Raheja Developers Ltd. Consequently, the Appeal No. 180/2022 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
12. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced On:
17.10.2023 DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 6