State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal vs 1. Sandeep Goyal on 15 October, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 439 of 2013 Date of Institution : 11.10.2013 Date of Decision : 15.10.2013 Mr. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, s/o Late Sh. D.S. Sabharwal, now resident of 100, Lakhi Nagar, Club Road, Near Church, Jorhat, Assam 785001 Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 V e r s u s 1. Sandeep Goyal s/o Sh. Roshan Lal Goyal, R/o House No.394, Sec-9, Panchkula. 2. Tripta Goyal w/o Sh.Sandeep Goyal, R/o House No.394, Sec-9, Panchkula. ....Respondents/complainants Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19731. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Rohit P. Ranjan, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.09.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainants (now respondents) and directed the Opposite Parties (one of whom is now appellant/Opposite Party No.2), as under:-
As result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to refund Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainants and Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the entire amount to the complainants along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.02.2011 till realization besides costs of litigation.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Parties, floated a scheme, under the name and style Cresent Apartments at Baddi (HP), with a proposal to develop apartments, on the total land comprising Khasra No.652/475, Khewat/Khatouni No.61/70 situated in Village Saner, Hadbast No.161, P.O. Manpura, Prg. Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. Attracted by the advertisements, in leading newspapers, giving rosy pictures, that the project had been duly approved by the Himachal Pradesh Govt., the complainants, visited the site, and deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/-, with the Opposite Parties, vide receipt No.065 dated 15.05.2006 (Annexure C-2). Another amount of Rs.2 lacs, as part price of the said apartment, was paid by the complainants. In all, an amount of Rs.2.25 lacs, was paid by the complainants, towards the part price of said apartment. The total price of the apartment, booked by the complainants, consisting of three bedrooms drawing/dining, kitchen and toilets, ground floor, was fixed at Rs.15 lacs, which included sanitary, electrical fittings etc. Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 19.02.2007 (Annexure C-3), was executed between the parties, at Chandigarh. According to Clause No.14 of the said Agreement, the builder was to complete the project, within 2 years, from the start of construction. Even after the lapse of two years, the time stipulated, in the said Agreement, no progress was made to complete the construction of apartment, despite the fact that the complainants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In the middle of June, 2009, the complainants visited the site, and found the office of the Opposite Parties locked. It further came to the knowledge of the complainants that Mr.Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Managing Director/Director of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Opposite Party No.2, had been arrested by the Chandigarh Police, in a cheating case. It was stated that neither the construction of apartment, was completed, nor the question of delivery of possession thereof could arise, nor refund of the amount deposited was made, despite various requests, by the complainants. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.2.25 lacs, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the dates of respective deposits, till realization; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, towards escalation of construction material, rent etc., mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.
3. On 12.05.2011, Sh. Jatinder Kumar Puri, Advocate, put in appearance, and filed his memo of appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complaint case was adjourned to various dates, with costs, for filing written version, and evidence, on behalf of the Opposite Parties, but they failed to do so, as a result whereof, on 05.09.2011, the District Forum, struck off their defence.
4. The complainants led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the complainants, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.
7. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 435 days, as per the applicant/ appellant (as per the office report 731 days), in filing the same (appeal), was moved. The grounds taken up, by the applicant/appellant, in the application, for condonation of delay, were to the effect, that it was never served with any notice, issued by the District Forum, in the Consumer Complaint bearing No.97 of 2011, and the same was decided exparte, vide order dated 06.09.2011. It was stated that when the Execution Application, under Section 27 of the Act, was filed against the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, through one of its Directors, he engaged Sh. R.K. Kakkar, on 22.07.2012, as Counsel therein. It was further stated that the said Counsel appeared before the District Forum, on 23.07.2012, and informed the applicant/ appellant, that there was nothing to worry, and he was taking care of the said case. It was further stated that the said Counsel never apprised the applicant/appellant, that there was an exparte order dated 06.09.2011, passed by the District Forum, and the same needed to be challenged in the appeal. It was further stated that the applicant/ appellant, had no source of income, and was in search of a job, as a result whereof, he had to move to Assam, where he was staying in a rented accommodation and working with a Coal Company, as Manager. Another notice, from the District Forum, issued at the new address of Assam of the applicant/appellant, was received by him, and he tried to contact his earlier Advocate, but he never responded. Accordingly, the applicant/appellant, got suspicious and hired a law firm of Delhi, to appear and defend him, in the Execution Application. It was further stated that the earlier Counsel had withdrawn his Power of Attorney, on 10.10.2012, without any intimation, to the applicant/appellant. It was further stated that a complaint against Sh. R.K. Kakkar, Advocate, had already been filed, before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. It was further stated that, on account of the reasons, aforesaid, the delay of 435 days, (as per the office report 731 days), in filing the appeal occurred. It was further stated that the delay, in filing the appeal, was neither intentional, nor deliberate. Accordingly, the prayer, referred to above, was made.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the applicant/appellant, on the application, for condonation of delay, as also, in the main appeal, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. Whether there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay or not, is the first question that falls for consideration. It was held in Smt.Tara Wanti Vs State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab & Haryana 32, a case decided by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, that sufficient cause, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, must be a cause, which is beyond the control of the party, invoking the aid of the Section, and the test to be applied, would be to see, as to whether, it was a bona-fide cause, in as much as, nothing could be considered to be bonafide, which is not done, with due care and attention. In New Bank of India Vs. M/s Marvels (India): 93 (2001) DLT 558, Delhi High Court, it was held as under:-
No doubt the words sufficient cause should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. However, when it is found that the applicants were most negligent in defending the case and their non-action and want of bonafides are clearly imputable, the Court would not help such a party. After all sufficient cause is an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guide-lines can be given and Court has to decide on the facts of each case as to whether, the defendant who has suffered ex-parte decree has been able to satisfactorily show sufficient cause for non- appearance and in examining this aspect, cumulative effect of all the relevant factors is to be seen.
10. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 19107 Punjab and Haryana 45, it was held as under:-
There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice, but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bonafides is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.
11. In R.B. Ramalingam Vs. R.B. Bhuvaneswari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.
12. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, V (2010) SLT 790=III (2010) CLT 201 (SC), it was held as under:-
The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]
13. In Mahant Bikram Dass Chela Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 14357, S.C. 2221, it was held as under:-
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around Section 5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigation who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay
14. In Ansul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) it was held 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, 19731, 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
15. A bare reading of the first proviso, engrafted to Section 15 of the Act, makes it clear, that the material part of the language thereof is pari-materia to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The grounds taken up, in the application for condonation of delay, that Sh. R.K. Kakkar, Advocate was engaged by the applicant/appellant, to defend him, in the District Forum, in Criminal Petition/Execution Application, and that the said Advocate, when contacted by the applicant/appellant, did not respond, are untrue. From the perusal of record of the District Forum, it transpires that Sh. R.K. Kakkar, Advocate, was never hired by the applicant/appellant/ Opposite Party No.2, to defend the Consumer Complaint, whereas, on the other hand, it was Sh.Jatinder Kumar Puri, Advocate, who filed his memo of appearance/power of attorney, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing no.97 of 2011, on behalf of the Opposite Parties. It further transpires from the District Forum record, that the complaint case was adjourned to various dates, with costs, for filing written version, and evidence, on behalf of the Opposite Parties, but they failed to do so, as a result whereof, on 05.09.2011, the District Forum, struck off their defence. It means that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Opposite Parties, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing no.97 of 2011, for filing written version, and evidence, but they failed to do so. It could be said that the applicant/appellant was not diligent in pursuing the matter. The prescribed period of limitation, as envisaged by Section 15 of the Act, for filing an appeal is 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The applicant/appellant did not act with due diligence, resulting into delay of 435 days, (as per the office report 731 days), in filing the appeal, which is about 15 times, beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The cause, set up by the applicant/appellant, in the application, for condonation of delay, could not be said to be plausible. The mere fact that the applicant/appellant, acted in a leisure mood, without envisaging the consequences, which could ensue, on account of non-filing of an appeal, within the period prescribed, under Section 15 of the Act, does not mean that he could be shown undue indulgence. The huge delay, in filing the appeal was, thus, intentional, willful and deliberate. Since, no sufficient cause is constituted, from the averments, contained in the application, the delay of 435 days, as per the applicant/appellant (as per the office report 731 days), cannot be condoned. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The application is, thus, liable to be dismissed.
16. The next question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, even if, sufficient cause is shown, it is obligatory, on the Commission, to condone the delay. The answer to this question, is in the negative. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it was held as under:-
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.
17. It is evident, from the principle of law, laid down in Ram Lal & Ors.s case (supra), that even 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, requires the Commission, to take into consideration, all the relevant factors, and it is, at this stage, that diligence of the party(s) or its/their bonafides, may fall for consideration. In the instant case, as stated above, it was obligatory, on the applicant/appellant, to take immediate steps to ensure that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period, as envisaged by Section 15 of the Act. However, as stated above, the applicant/appellant, just slept over the matter, and did not take the requisite steps to file the appeal, in time. It was, thus, a case of complete lack of bonafides and inaction, on the part of the applicant/appellant. The principle of law, laid down in Ram Lal & Others case (supra) is fully applicable to the instant case. This is, therefore, not a fit case, in which this Commission, should exercise its discretion, in favour of the applicant/appellant, in condoning the delay.
18. The Counsel for the applicant/appellant, however, placed reliance on Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katii (infact Katiji) and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353 and M.K. Prasad Vs. P. Arumugam, 2001 (6) SCC 176, to contend that the delay of 435 days, (as per the office report 731 days), in filing the appeal, could be condoned. The perusal of facts of the aforesaid cases, cited by the Counsel for the applicant/appellant, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. Those cases were decided, on the peculiar facts and circumstances, prevailing therein. No invariable principle of law, was laid down, in Collector Land Acquisition and M.K. Prasad`s cases (supra), that even if, no sufficient cause was shown, the delay must be condoned.
No help therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the applicant/appellant, from these cases.
19. Now coming to the main appeal, it may be stated here, that the first argument, advanced by the Counsel for the applicant/appellant, was to the effect that the Consumer Complaint bearing No.97 of 2011 filed on 22.02.2011, was barred by time, as the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement was executed between the complainants/ respondent and Ms.J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, on 19.02.2007, wherein, it was agreed to complete the construction of apartments, within a period of two years, from the date of start of construction, which period expired on 18.02.2009. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It may be stated here, that, in the instant case, neither the apartment, which the complainants booked, and for which they deposited the part price was constructed, nor the question of delivery of possession thereof could ever arise, nor the refund of money, deposited by them (complainants), was made to them. There was, thus, a continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainants. In Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah And Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380, wherein, the facts and circumstances were similar to the one, involved, in the instant case, it was held that there was a continuing cause of action, and the complaint was not barred by time. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), the complainant applied for a plot, in the year 1992, on the basis of inducement made in the advertisements of the petitioner, knowing fully well, that the land, in question, was under litigation. Consumer Complaint was filed, in the year 2009, claiming relief of execution of the sale deed, which was granted to him. An objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time. The Hon`ble Supreme Court held that there was a continuing cause of action, and, as such, the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was, not at all barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
20. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 could be held liable, in his individual capacity, as Managing Director/Director of the said Company, to satisfy the same (order).
The answer to this question, is in the affirmative. In the instant case, the Consumer Complaint bearing No.97 of 2011, was filed against M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party No.1, through its Managing Director, and Shri Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Director M/s J.S.Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Admn. Office at SCO No. 210-211, 2nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Director. Alongwith the appeal, a document dated 02.01.2006 Annexure A-4 has been submitted by the appellant. It is a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement, executed between Shri S.S. Multani, General Power of Attorney holder and Proprietor of S.S. Infrastructure (first party) and M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized Managing Director-Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, son of Sh. D.S. Sabharwal, having its office and residence at H.No.1385, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. In this document, which has been placed, on the record, by the appellant, himself, alongwith the memorandum of appeal, he was described as Managing Director of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Opposite Party No.1. Since, Mr.Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, claimed himself as Managing Director/Director of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Opposite Party No.1, he could not escape his liability. Mr.Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Managing Director/Director of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Opposite Party No.1, being in-charge of and responsible to the Company, for the conduct of its day to day affairs, was bound to comply with the order dated 06.09.2011, passed by the District Forum.
21. In Ashish Ramesh Chandra Birla & Ors.Vs Murlidhar Rajdhar Patil & Ors.I (2009) CPJ 200 (NC), a Consumer Complaint was filed against Siddhi Vyankatesh Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Jalgaon, that some amount was invested with it, in a Scheme launched by it, but it failed to pay the same, on maturity.
The complaint was, ultimately, accepted by the District Forum. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, First Appeal was preferred, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, and the State Commission, Revision Petition was filed, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, taking up an objection, that the Directors of the Society were not personally responsible, for any default of repayment of the maturity amount, by the Society. Ultimately, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, held that the Directors of the Society were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of maturity and were rightly held to be deficient, in rendering service, by the Foras below. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case.
22. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, all other Directors of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party No.1, were required to be impleaded as parties to the Consumer Complaint, under Section 12 of the Act or not. In our considered opinion, it was not necessary, on the part of the complainants, to implead all the Directors of the Company, in their individual capacity, in the Consumer Complaint, as parties. As stated above, the Company is to act through the Managing Director/Directors of the same, and, as and when, an order is passed against the Company, the Managing Director/Director, through which that Company was impleaded, could not say that he was not liable, in the absence of other Directors. By no stretch of imagination, it, therefore, could be said that the Consumer Complaint bearing No.97 of 2011, was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
23. The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on N.K. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and Ors., decided on 09.03.2007, K. Srikanth Singh Vs. North East Securities Ltd. and Anr., decided on 20.07.2007 by the Hon`ble Supreme Court and Hrushikesh Panda Vs. Indramani Swain and Anr., AIR 1987 Ori. 79, to contend that, in the absence of any averment, in the complaint, having been made by the complainants, to the effect that Mr. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Managing Director/Director was in-charge of the Company and responsible for its day to day business, he could not be held liable, in his individual capacity. There is, no dispute, about the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant. However, the facts of the instant case are completely distinguishable, from the facts of the aforesaid case. None of the cases, relied upon, by the Counsel for the appellant, related to the interpretation of the provisions of the Act. N.K. Wahi and K. Srikanth Singh`s cases (supra), related to the interpretation of Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (amended upto date) and Hrushikesh Panda`s case (supra), related to the interpretation of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the instant case, the principle of law, laid down, in Ashish Ramesh Chandra Birla`s case (supra), relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the Act, shall be applicable. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from the principle of law, laid down, in the cases, relied upon by him, and cited in this paragraph.
The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
24. The appellant claimed himself to be a victim of fraud, played upon him, by other Directors of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, who statedly siphoned off huge money of the said Company, for their wrongful gains, for which he (appellant) had already got registered an FIR, which was pending investigation, before the competent Authority. The third parties i.e. the complainants were not concerned, as to who siphoned off the money. They paid the amount of Rs.2.25 lacs, towards the part price of apartment, in question, to the Opposite Party, through Mr.Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, aforesaid. When neither the apartment, was allotted to the complainants, nor the same was constructed, nor the question of delivery of possession thereof, could ever arise, nor the amount deposited by them, was refunded to them, they filed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.97 of 2011, which was, ultimately, accepted, in the terms, referred to above. The mere fact that the appellant has got registered a criminal case, against the other Directors, on the ground, that they have siphoned off huge money of the Company, is of no relevance, so far as the proceedings in this case, are concerned. Mere registration of FIR/case, against other Directors, could not exonerate Mr.Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Managing Director/Director of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party No.1, of his liability. The registration of FIR, therefore, does not have any impact, on the decision, of the instant appeal. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
25. It was also the claim of the appellant that the amount deposited by the complainants and other buyers was invested for acquiring the land and developing the project with Mr. S.S.Multani, by way of executing the Joint Venture Agreement, aforesaid, but he dishonestly misappropriated Rs.80 lacs, and failed to provide land for development. It was further claimed that complaint against Mr. S.S.Multani, has already been filed before the Competent Authority, which was pending inquiry. As stated above, the complainants/Decree holders paid the money to the Company, through Mr. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, who was the Managing Director/Director of the Company, and was responsible for the allotment of apartment, construction thereof, delivery of possession of the same, or refund of the amount. Whether Mr. S.S.Multani, duped the Company, or Mr. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, its Managing Director/ Director, was none of the concerns of the complainants. Such a matter was only between Mr. S.S.Multani, and Mr.Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Managing Director/Director of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited. In case, Mr. S.S.Multani, has duped the Company or Mr. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Managing Director/Director, then he may, proceed against him, under the provisions of law, but cannot escape his liability, so far as the complainants are concerned, with regard to refund of the said amount. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
26. The District Forum was right, in holding that by not refunding the amount, deposited by the complainants, with the Opposite Parties, the latter were deficient, in rendering service.
27. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
28. The order of the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission, and is liable to be upheld.
29. For the reasons recorded above, the application for condonation of delay, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal being barred by time, and devoid of merit, is also dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
30. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
31. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
15.10.2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg