National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ajay Babu & Anr. vs Mvsn Vijay Kumar on 18 December, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 819 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 27/12/2016 in Appeal No. 936/2015 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. AJAY BABU & ANR. S/O. SRI N. KUTUMBA RAO, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. SBC INFRA PROJECTS INDIA LTD., R/O. FLAT NO. 301, PLOT NO. 97, MEENAKSHI PART SIDE APARTMENTS SRI NAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD TELANGANA 2. M/S. SBC INFRA PROJECTS INDIA LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. AJAY BABU S/O. SRI N. KUTUMBA RAO, NO. 8-2-269/S/103, SAGAR HOUSING SOCIETY ROAD NO. 2, BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD TELANGANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MVSN VIJAY KUMAR S/O. M. BHASKARA RAO, R/O. FLAT NO. 402, BLOCK NO. 3, PRESTTINE PLACE GAJULARAMARAM, HYDERABAD-500055 TELANGANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Dayanand Patil, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Y. Nagaraju, Advocate (On Caveat) Dated : 18 Dec 2017 ORDER
1. By this batch of four Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), a Real Estate Developer, namely, M/s SBC Infra Projects India Ltd., and its Managing Director, the Opposite Parties in the Complaints under the Act, call in question the correctness and legality of a common order, dated 27.12.2016, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission"), in FAIA/282/2015 in FASR/936/2015, FAIA/283/2015 in FASR/939/2015, FAIA/284/2015 in FASR/942/2015 & FAIA/285/2015 in FASR/945/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals as barred by limitation.
2. The Appeals had been preferred by the Petitioners herein against the orders, dated 31.01.2014 and 30.09.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 250, 46, 47 & 42 of 2013. By the said orders, while allowing the Complaints, preferred by the several Complainants, including the Respondents herein, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to complete the left over work as per the specifications in Schedule-A and Schedule-B, as referred to in the Complaints, or in the alternative pay to each of the Complainants a sum of ₹56,000/-, and further sum ranging between ₹2,05,000/- and ₹3,80,500/-. Further, while directing the Petitioners to provide car parking space to the Complainants, the District Forum had also directed them to pay a compensation of ₹50,000/- and litigation costs, quantified at ₹5,000/-, to each of the Complainants.
3. Since the Complaints involved more or less similar facts, common issues & the same Opposite Parties; the District Forum has allowed the Complaints on similar lines; and the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioners, by a common order, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 819 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts referred to hereinafter are also taken from the said Revision Petition, which would govern all the cases.
4. The Petitioners had launched a project to construct a residential complex in the name and style "Pristine Place" at Gajula Ramaram Village in Ranga Reddy District. Allured with the advertisements by the Petitioners in this behalf, the Complainant had purchased a flat in the said complex. The possession of the flat was agreed to be delivered within six months from the date of the sale deed. However, on account of non-completion of the venture within the stipulated period, the Petitioners handed over an incomplete flat to the Complainant 31.10.2011. Only 75 - 80% construction work had been completed in the project by the Petitioners and that too with sub-standard/inferior quality material. The Petitioners had also not constructed the flat as per the specifications mentioned in brochure/Schedules "A" and "B" of the property, as referred to in the Complaints. Subsequently, the Petitioners abandoned the venture, on account of which the Complainant suffered physical/mental agony and huge financial loss. Though the Complainant had spent the huge amount for the flat in question but, apart from the fact that there were a number of defects in the flat in question, he was deprived from enjoying the common amenities/facilities in the venture. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners on the said grounds, as also on the counts indicated in the Complaint, the afore-noted Complaint(s) came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.
5. Upon notice, neither the Petitioners put in appearance before the District Forum nor filed their Written Versions in rebuttal to the allegations levelled against them in the Complaints.
6. Accordingly, while forfeiting the Petitioners' right to file the Written Version, on evaluation of the evidence adduced by the Complainants, the District Forum, as noted above, allowed the Complaints and issued the aforesaid directions to the Petitioners.
7. Aggrieved, the Petitioners carried the matter further in their Appeals to the State Commission, albeit, with a delay ranging between 503 to 628 days. For condonation of the said delay, the Petitioner/Appellant had furnished the following explanation:
"4. I submit that no notices were served upon as and hence could not appear before the Lower Forum resisting the claim of the Respondent. I submit that due to hectic activities outside Hyderabad I was not informed about that passing of the impugned orders by the Lower Forum and henceforth the above appeal could not be filed in time. In fact, our staff have misplaced the lower court orders now appealed.
5. I submit that the Respondent herein filed execution application and which is being undertaken for complying the same.
.... .... .... ...."
8. As noted above, while coming to the conclusion that the Petitioners have failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the Appeals, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the Appeals as barred by limitation.
9. Hence, the present Revision Petitions.
10. The short question for consideration in these Petitions is whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not exercising the discretion vested in it under the First Proviso to Section 15 of the Act for condoning the delay in filing of the Appeals.
11. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay.
12. It is trite that when a special Statute prescribes a particular period of limitation, it has to be construed strictly and observed scrupulously. Even otherwise, an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty. Regard being had to these broad principles, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out by the Petitioners to justify the inordinate delay ranging between 503 and 628 days in filing the Appeals.
13. The afore-stated inordinate delay was sought to be explained by the Petitioners mainly on the grounds that no notice was served upon them by the District Forum and also they were not informed about the final orders passed in the Complaints. As far as the plea as regards non-receipt of the notice from the District Forum is concerned, a perusal of final orders passed in the Complaints shows that the District Forum had duly issued notice to the Petitioners, which was either received by them or they had refused to accept the same, and only after recording its satisfaction on the service of notice on the Petitioners, the District Forum had forfeited their right to file the Written Version, which otherwise had to be filed within the maximum period as stipulated in the Act. Under the circumstances, the District Forum had no option but to proceed with the cases and pass final orders therein on merits, on evaluation of the material on record. Further, it is evident from the impugned order that the address of the Petitioners in their Appeals before the State Commission and the Complaints, preferred by the Complainants, was the same. In any case, it was not even the case of the Petitioners in their Appeals. In such a situation, in our view, the District Forum was justified in recording its satisfaction relating to service on the Petitioners/Opposite Parties. Coming to the plea that the Petitioners were not informed about the orders passed by the District Forum, we find that there were contradictory averments in the application, seeking condonation of delay. While at one place the said plea was taken, subsequently it was stated that Petitioners' staff had misplaced the order appealed against. Evidently, the earlier plea was not correct and deserved to be rejected. In view of the above, it belies conviction that the Petitioners had no knowledge about the proceedings before the District Forum. When notice was received/refused to accept in the Complaints, being the Opposite Parties therein, the Petitioners ought to have contested the same, more so, when it is a Body Corporate but it was not so. It seems that the Petitioners were not bothered by the said proceedings as well as directions issued to them by the District Forum in the final orders in the Complaints. It was only after initiation of the execution proceedings that the Petitioners woke up and filed the Appeals before the State Commission on 29.07.2015, with the afore-stated inordinate delay, for which, except for the aforesaid bald pleas, no convincing explanation was forthcoming from the Petitioners/Appellants. We are convinced that the Appeals before the State Commission was nothing but an unholy attempt by the Petitioners to protract the matter on one pretext or the other.
14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners had failed to make out any cause, much less a "sufficient cause" for condonation of the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeals and, hence, the State Commission, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, did not commit any jurisdictional error in dismissing the Appeals as barred by limitation.
15. Consequently, the Revision Petitions fails and are dismissed in limine accordingly.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER