National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Shreya Developwell Pvt. Ltd. vs Yogendra Saini & Anr. on 26 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 596 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 15/05/2015 in Appeal No. 481/2014 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. M/S. SHREYA DEVELOPWELL PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE 124, AGCR ENCLAVE NEW DELHI-110092 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. YOGENDRA SAINI & ANR. SH. M.R. SAINI, R/O 61, BHAGWAN NAGAR, GURUDWARA BALA SAHIB ROAD, OPPOSITE MAHARANI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110014 2. MRS. POOJA SAINI W/O SH. YOGENDRA KUMAR SAINI, R/O 61, BHAGWAN NAGAR, GURUDWARA BALA SAHIB ROAD, OPPOSITE MAHARANI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110014 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate with Sh. Jitender Singh, A.R. For the Respondent : Mr. L.G. Dass, Advocate Dated : 26 May 2016 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) IA/4990/2016 The Amended Memo of Parties is taken on record. The application stands disposed of.
IA/4991/2016 The fresh affidavit in support of the revision petition and the accompanying application is taken on record. The application stands disposed of.
IA/4992/2016 The delay in compliance of the order of this Commission dated 03.05.2016 is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
RP/596/2016 This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 15.05.2015, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner company against the order of the District Forum dated 03.03.2014 was dismissed as barred by limitation. Since there is a delay of almost 6 months in filing of this revision petition, an application seeking condonation of the said delay has also been filed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.
3. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
"2. That the Petitioner had filed the aforesaid FA No.481/2014 through their Advocate Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma. Thereafter the petitioner was in constant touch with their counsel Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, who time and against assured the petitioner that their said First Appeal is being very well looked after by him and he shall keep informed the petitioner with further developments in the case.
4. That the petitioner was always informed by their said counsel that the Appeal is pending before the Ld. State Commission. However, in the last week of December, 2015 when the representative of the petitioner visited the office of the said counsel to discuss the case and further course of action in the matter, they were shocked to notice that the said Appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation vide order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Ld. State Commission.
5. That the petitioner requested the said counsel to make available the certified copy of the order dated 15.05.2015. The counsel informed the petitioner that he has not yet received the certified free copy of the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Ld. State Commission. However, the counsel assured the petitioner to get a certified copy of the order dated 15.05.2015 at the earliest. The petitioner repeatedly requested the said counsel between May 2015 to January 2016 to make available the certified copy of order dated 15.05.2015 passed Ld. State Commission.
6. That on instructions from the petitioner, the counsel applied for the first certified copy of the order dated 15.05.2015 on 29.01.2016 and the same was supplied by the Ld. State Commission to the counsel on 17.02.2016. Accordingly, the petitioner as well as their counsel received the first certified copy of the impugned order dated 15.05.2015 for the first time on 17.02.2016."
4. It would thus be seen that the only ground taken in the application seeking condonation of delay is the alleged negligence on the part of the Advocate, who was representing the petitioner company before the State Commission. On being asked by us, the learned counsel for the petitioner company states that no action has been taken by them against the Counsel, who according to them was negligent in discharge of his professional obligations. No complaint against the said Counsel was filed before the concerned Bar Council. No notice to the aforesaid Counsel was given, referring to the above referred negligence on his part. It was also admitted, during the course of hearing, that the aforesaid Counsel continues representing the petitioner company in a number of cases. It appears to us that had the ground given in the application seeking condonation of delay, been bonafide and genuine, the least the petitioner would have done was to take back all the briefs, which had been given to the Counsel, who is alleged to be negligent in discharging his professional obligations. The failure of the petitioner company to do so clearly indicates that the ground made out in the application is not bonafide and the petitioner company just wants to cover up its own negligence in the matter by imputing the delay to the Advocate, who was representing it before the State Commission.
5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants brought to our notice that the petitioner company had sent two cheques of ₹1 Lakh each to them in compliance of the orders passed by the fora below, when execution proceedings were initiated against it. Both the above referred cheques, when presented to the bank, were dishonoured. The copies of the cheques and the Bank Memos are also shown to us. The representative of the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid statement. The above referred conduct of the petitioner company clearly shows that it has scant regard for the process of law and has tried to circumvent the same by issuing cheques, which it did not want to honour. The above referred conduct of the petitioner company also disentitles it from the discretionary relief of condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed, as barred by limitation.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ......................J ANUP K THAKUR MEMBER