State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Tdi Infrasturcture Ltd. vs Sadhna Gupta on 19 July, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 19.07.2016 Date of Decision: 22.07.2016 Appeal No. 166/15 (Arising out of the order dated 12.12.2014 passed in Complaint Case No.725/11 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum-New Delhi.) In the matter of: M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. .............Appellant Versus Sadhna Gupta, W/o Vinod Gupta, R/o B-4/41, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. ............Respondent CORAM O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) 1.
Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) This order will dispose of application for condonation of delay moved by appellant in filing appeal. The appeal is directed against order dated 12.12.2014 in CC No.725/11 passed by District Forum-VI. According to application, there is delay of 45 days in filing appeal. The plea of the appellant is that it received copy of order in the midst of winter vacation and could be considered after winter vacation was over. The appellant instructed its counsel to draft appeal on 06.01.2015. The counsel drafted the appeal and sent the same to appellant for approval on 23.01.2015, the matter related to project in Mohali, Punjab. The head office of appellant forwarded clarifications sought by counsel to the regional office where due to technical issue in the software, clarification could not be sent out but appellant was under impression that email containing draft of appeal alongwith request for clarification and suggestions had been sent out. The mail was never received by counsel. It was only when appellant received notice from District Forum in execution that appellant realised that it did not have latest status of filing of appeal.
Lateron, the appellant moved another application for condonation of delay contending that actually there is delay of 74 days and not 45 days as mentioned in the original application which accompanied appeal.
The respondent has opposed the application by filing a reply. According to her, there is delay of about 92 days in filing appeal. No single document has been filed by the appellant in support of its contention. Registry of the Commission remains open during winter vacations as is clearly mentioned in the calendar uploaded on the website of the Commission. It is hard to believe that appellant did not inquire about status of draft of appeal sent to them by their counsel as appeal and supporting documents were required to be signed by the appellant only. The allegation shows careless attitude.
I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The respondent has relied upon the following decisions:-
M/s. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Tak and Ors., Revision Petition No.1623 of 2011 passed by National Commission on 05.02.2013. JMR Medical Centre Vs. Sales Manager, Revision Petition No.4546 of 2012 passed by National Commission on 18.01.2013. Exis Bank Ltd. Vs. True Horizon, FA No.1132/12 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi, decided on 25.10.2013. Delhi Jal Board Vs. Shri Vishwa Nath Pandey, FA No.8/2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi, decided on 06.11.2013. Narayana IIT Adademy Vs. R.K. Sharma, FA No.2010/173, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi, decided on 26.05.2010. M/s. Associates India Financial Vs. AVS Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. FA No.669/2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi, decided on 24.10.2013.
In all above cases, condonation of delay was dismissed.
Law regarding condonation of delay in consumer courts is little bit different than that applied in ordinary civil court. Since these proceedings are summary in nature and have to be concluded within time bound schedule, no laxity can be shown to the appellant.
The allegations made by the appellant are in the nature of inter departmental matter of coordination. The same do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay is dismissed. The application is dismissed. With this appeal also stands dismissed as being barred by limitation.
A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as per rule. One copy be sent to District Forum for information.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial)