State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers vs K.R. Srivasula on 16 May, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 16.5.2013 First Appeal 55/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 5.9.2012 passed by the District Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate New Delhi in complaint case No. 204/2007) Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., 9-B, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001 .........Appellant VS Shri K.R. Srivasula S/o Late Sh. S.Madhavacharlu R/o A-145, Lane No.3, Shakarpur, Delhi-92 .....Respondent CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President Mrs. Salma Noor, Member
V.K.Gupta, Member(Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
1. This appeal by the OP is directed against the order dated 5.9.2012 of the District Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi allowing the complaint and issuing direction to the OP to pay the penalty for the delayed period along with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 24.7.2010 onwards and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
2. Along with the appeal the appellant has filed delay condonation application. According to the appellant himself the appeal is filed 130 days beyond the prescribed limitation.
3. We have heard Shri Anish Verma, Counsel for the Appellant and shri K.P.Mavi, Counsel for the Respondent and perused the record.
4. The reasons given for condonation of delay in filing the appeal reads as under:
a) That the appellant was constantly in touch with their Lawyer in order to know the status of the complaint No.ITC/204/07, however, the order of the case could not be known to the appellant, in spite of best efforts made by them.
b) that the appellant came to know of the order on 19.12.2012 when their Counsel made frantic effots from the Forum to know about the status of the order and was told by the Court master that the said complaint has been disposed off on 5.9.2012.
c) that in the first week of January 2012, the appellant instructed his counsel to file appeal against the order of the Ld. Forum.
d) that the Counsel for the appellant found out that the order was served at the previous address of the appellant, which has been vacated by them in 2010 itself, and thus, the same was not served at the present address:
e) that the appellant is a Corporate Entity and on account of the Departmental administrative procedure involved in filing the appeal, there was a delay in filing the appeal. The delay was further enhanced as some of the pleadings and orders pertaining to Lower Forum was received by the Counsel for the appellant at a later stage, which gave rise to delay in filing the appeal.
5. The explanation for the delay is not at all satisfactory. The contention of the applicant is that he has no knowledge about the impugned order and the proceedings before the Trial Forum is patently wrong and erroneous in view of the fact that it was a contested case and he himself averred in his application that his Counsel was perusing the case before the District Forum.
6. His another contention is that the copy of the impugned order was served at the previous address of the appellant, which he had already vacated. This contention of the appellant has also no force. It was the duty of the appellant to provide his new address before the District Forum during the pendency of the case. Therefore, it is our considered view that the appellant was fully aware of the impugned order and now he cannot play ignorant. The grounds taken by him in his application are naive & bogus and not in any way constitute sufficient cause as describe in Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
7. The Honble Supreme Court in the case reported in General Manager, Southern Railway & Anr. Vs. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36 had observed in the following manner:-
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large majority of case-law has grown around Section5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accused to a part by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.
8. The Honble Supreme Court in the case State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Indistries (I) reported in II(2009)CPJ29(SC)=II(2009) SLT 793=2009 CTJ 481 (Supreme Court)(CP), while interpreting the Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 has observed in the following manner:-
The provision of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is peremptory in nature and requires a consumer forum to see before it admits a complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown.
9. The law of the Supreme Court and followed by the National Commission in this regard is well settled. Reference can be made to few of such cases cited below:-
i) Delhi Development Authority vs. Gurinder Kaur Kohli III 2010 CPJ 248 (NC)
ii) HUDA vs. Krishna Devi III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iii) HUDA vs. Randhir Singh III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iv) Narayana IIT Academy vs. R.K. Sharma III 2010 191-(DSCDRC)
10. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we see no just and sufficient cause shown to our satisfaction for condoning the delay. Hence the request for condoning the delay is turned down and the application for the purpose moved by the applicant is rejected.
10. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released in his favour after completing due formalities.
12. A Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member (V.K.Gupta) Member (Judicial) Arya