National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Landmark Apartment Pvt. Ltd. vs Harjeevan Kaur Garewal & Anr. on 20 September, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1150 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/05/2016 in Complaint No. 93/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. M/S. LANDMARK APARTMENT PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RAJESH GAREWAL, PLOT NO 65-P, SECTOR 44 GURGAON HARYANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. HARJEEVAN KAUR GAREWAL & ANR. W/O. LATE SH KANWALJIT SINGH GAREWAL, R/O. HOUSE NO 536, SECTOR 16D, CHANDIGARGH 2. SHRI APPORVAJIT SINGH GAREWAL S/O. LATE SH KANWALJIT SINGH GAREWAL, R/O. HOUSE NO 536, SECTOR 16-D, CHANDIGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aviral Dhirendra, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 20 Sep 2017 ORDER
1. Challenge in this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer, namely, Landmark Apartment Pvt. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, is to the order dated 05.05.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Cases No. 93 of 2015. By the impugned order, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to refund to the Complainants a sum of ₹41,72,448/-, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, and in case of failure to do so, the Appellant would be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount.
2. The facts, necessitating the Complainants to file the Complaint, as culled out from the impugned order, are as follows:
Allured with the advertisement published by the Appellant, offering shops in their upcoming project, namely, Landmark The Mall, at Sector-66, Gurgaon, the Complainants had purchased a shop, being Shop No.40 on the Ground Floor, admeasuring 520 sq. feet, @ ₹5,770/- per sq. ft., for earning their livelihood. On payment of total consideration of ₹30,00,000/-, an agreement was executed between the parties on 11.12.2007. As per the same, the project was required to be completed within three years from the date of booking/agreement dated 11.12.2007. Despite lapse of over three years, the Appellant did not start the project, prompting the Complainants to issue a legal notice to it for refund of the amount paid by them, with interest as per the agreement, but with no success. In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, praying for the reliefs mentioned in the Complaint.
3. Upon notice, the Appellant contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version.
4. On analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the State Commission, as noted above, allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions to the Appellant.
5. Hence, the present Appeal.
6. It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, in as much as there is a delay of 361 days in filing the same. An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraph no.2 of the same, the Appellant has furnished the following explanation for the delay:
"2. That there is a delay of 361 days in filing the appeal. The delay has occurred due to the facts that the matter was dismissed on 5/5/2016 by the Hon'ble State Commission. The certified copy of the order was dispatched on 9/6/2016 by the Registry of the Hon'ble State Commission but the same was misplaced. The counsel for the Appellants informed the Appellant about the status of his case and the Appellant visited the counsel to collect his case file. Immediately, thereafter, the Appellants visited Delhi and engaged lawyer for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Commission and submitted all the documents and thereafter, the present appeal was drafted."
7. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant on the question of delay. In our view, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
8. Admittedly, the certified copy of the impugned order, dated 05.05.2016, was issued to the Appellant on 09.06.2016. Going by the same and bearing in mind the statutory period, as provided under Section 19 of the Act for filing the Appeal, the Appellant was required to file the same within a period of 30 days but it has been filed only on 31.05.2017, with the aforesaid inordinate delay of 361 days. The said delay is sought to be explained on the specious plea that the certified copy of the impugned order, issued by the State Commission, was misplaced. Though the said bald plea does not hold water, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the certified copy of the impugned order was misplaced, the fact remains that the Appellant was duly represented before the State Commission by its Counsel, who, on disposal of the Complaint, preferred by the Complainants, to its detriment, had, admittedly, apprised the Appellant about the same. However, the Application is conspicuously silent as to date-wise developments taking place in the matter, viz. the dates when the Counsel informed the Appellant the status of the case; when the Appellant visited him; when the Appellant visited Delhi; when the lawyer was engaged; and when the documents were furnished to him. In the absence of the said details, it can safely be inferred that the Appellant was not bothered by the directions issued to it by the State Commission, because even after promptly receiving the certified copy of the impugned order, the Appellant did not show any seriousness in pursuing the matter at its end to ensure that the Appeal was filed within time.
9. In the light of the afore-noted factual scenario, we have no hesitation in holding that the Appellant has failed to make out any cause, much less a "sufficient cause" for condonation of inordinate delay of 361 days. In our view, condonation of the said unexplained delay would be travesty of justice, in as much as, having paid substantial amount to the Appellant to purchase the shop in question for earning their livelihood almost a decade ago, the Complainants are deprived of their hard earned money. Accordingly, we decline to condone the said delay.
10. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed on the short ground of limitation.
11. The statutory deposit made at the time of filing of the Appeal shall stand transferred to the Consumer Legal Aid Account - NCDRC.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER