State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Advantage Engineering & Developers ... vs Mr Puneet Mehra on 5 June, 2023
FA/231/2023 DOD:05.06.2023
M/S ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. MR. PUNEET MEHRA
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 24.05.2023
Date of Hearing : 01.06.2023
Date of Decision : 05.06.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 231/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
19C, DDA FLATS, MASJID MOTH-I, GREATER KAILASH-III,
NEW DELHI-110048
CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
D-162, SECTOR 10, NOIDA,
UP-201301
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
MR. PUNEET MEHRA
THROUGH LRs
I. MS. SUNITA MEHRA
W/O LATE MR. PUNEET MEHRA
II. MR. PRATEEK MEHRA
S/O LATE MR. PUNEET MEHRA
III. MR. TULIKA MEHRA
D/O LATE MR. PUNEET MEHRA
RESIDENTS OF:
6M-113, RIDGEWOOD ESTATE,
DLF CITY, PHASE-4,
GURUGRAM-122009
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
DISMISSED Page 1 of 7
FA/231/2023 DOD:05.06.2023
M/S ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. MR. PUNEET MEHRA
Present: Mr. Sumeet Kaul and Mr. Mimanshiv Singhal, counsel for
the appellant.
Mr. Indiraa Unninayar, counsel for the respondent.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 24.05.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 vide which Complaint Case No.142/2012 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-X (South-II), Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1231/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 1856 days in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Asit Mittal S/o Mr. K.C. Mittal, Director/ Authorized Representative of the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.
3. We have given considerable thought to the submissions put forth by either of the parties. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.142/2012.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.2 and 3 of the application read as under:
"2. That the present petition is being filed within 30 days from the date of the knowledge of impugned order as the copy of the Execution Petition was served by the Respondent to the Appellant on 08.05.2023 thus is within the period of limitation.
3. That it is submitted herewith great respect that delay caused in filing the present. Appeal was due to the late receiving of the impugned Order/Judgement order Dated 17.04.2018 thus the delay caused is not DISMISSED Page 2 of 7 FA/231/2023 DOD:05.06.2023 M/S ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. MR. PUNEET MEHRA deliberate and in the interest of justice may be condoned."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer toSection 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whichprovides as under:-
"Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
[Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less]"
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 17.04.2018 and the present appeal was filed on 24.05.2023 i.e. after a delay of 1833 days.
8. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
DISMISSED Page 3 of 7FA/231/2023 DOD:05.06.2023 M/S ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. MR. PUNEET MEHRA "9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause"
from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose."
9. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'bleNCDRC held as under:-
"12. .........we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of AnshulAggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, will get defeated if the DISMISSED Page 4 of 7 FA/231/2023 DOD:05.06.2023 M/S ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. MR. PUNEET MEHRA appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."
10. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingamin Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of PopatBahiruGoverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.
11. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Commission, it is clear that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and the applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 FA/231/2023 DOD:05.06.2023 M/S ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. MR. PUNEET MEHRA explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
12. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 17.04.2018 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 17.05.2018. However, the appellant has failed to file the present appeal within the stipulated period.
13. The reason for delay stated in the application is that the Appellant came to know about the impugned order on 08.05.2023 when it received the copy of the execution petition.
14. On perusal of record before us, the annotation mentioned at page No.1 of impugned order dated 17.04.2018 annexed with the appeal at page No.14 reveals that the impugned order was dispatched to the parties on 17.04.2018 vide dispatch No. CDRFX/2018-19/1390-92. It is the Appellant to explain or justify as the corresponding address of the Appellant are the same where the copy of the impugned order was sent and where the executive copy has been received.
15. However, appellant has failed to explain the cogent reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Further, no document was furnished by the Appellant to prove the contention averred in the application. The Appellant has failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused after the pronouncement of the impugned order. Therefore, it is abundantly clear from the above that the appellant was moving at his own pace unmindful that the prescribed period to file an appeal is 30 days from the date of judgment.
16. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicant/appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant seeking DISMISSED Page 6 of 7 FA/231/2023 DOD:05.06.2023 M/S ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. MR. PUNEET MEHRA condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
17. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
18. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced on 05.06.2023 DISMISSED Page 7 of 7