State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pawan Gaur vs Vardhman Properties Ltd. on 11 May, 2023
FA/44/2022 MR. PAWAN GAUR VS VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. D.O.D. 11.05.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 01.04.2022
Date of hearing: 04.05.2023
Date of Decision: 11.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.44/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. PAWAN GAUR
S/O MR. RAM CHANDER GAUR
R/O M-53, VIKAS APARTMENTS, WEST ENCLAVE
PITAMPURA, DELHI-110035.
(Through : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gill, Advocate)
....Applicant/Appellant
VERSUS
VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LIMITED
THROUGH ITS CEO/MD
VARDHMAN'S NAYA BAZAR, RAMPURA COMMUNITY CENTRE
LAWRENCE ROAD, DELHI-110035
[email protected]
....Non-applicant/Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Ms. Saloni, proxy counsel for Mr. Mukesh Gill, counsel for
applicant/appellant.
PER : MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DISMISSED Page 1 of 8
FA/44/2022 MR. PAWAN GAUR VS VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. D.O.D. 11.05.2023
ORDER
1. The present appeal has been filed on 01.04.2022, challenging the impugned order dated 22.02.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-V (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, CSC-Block-C, Pocket-C, New Delhi-110088 in CC No.166/2013.
2. Along with the appeal, an application (IA No.371/2022) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been moved by counsel for the applicant/appellant. Therefore, before deciding the present appeal on merits, the pending application (IA No.371/2022) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is yet to be disposed off.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the application (IA No.371/2022) has been moved without mentioning any provision of law. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.166/2013.
4. This order will dispose off an application (IA No.371/2022) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
5. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
6. The applicant/appellant has prayed for condonation of delay on the grounds that copy of impugned order dated 22.02.2022 was received by counsel for the applicant/appellant on 25.02.2022. Counsel for the applicant/appellant had tried to communicate on 26.02.2022 as well as 27.02.2022 but due to unavoidable reason counsel for the applicant/appellant could not contact to the applicant/appellant. Hence, impugned order dated 22.02.2022 was received by the applicant/appellant on 28.02.2022. After reading impugned order dated 22.02.2022, the applicant/appellant discussed the same with his family member and decided to file the appeal before this Commission. The DISMISSED Page 2 of 8 FA/44/2022 MR. PAWAN GAUR VS VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. D.O.D. 11.05.2023 applicant/appellant contacted his counsel on 07.03.2022 to file the appeal. Thereafter, the certified copy of the complete judicial file was applied on 09.03.2022 which was supplied on 11.03.2022. After receiving the same, the applicant/appellant requested to file appeal as early as possible and within limitation period.
7. Para 2, 3 & 5 the application (IA No.371/2022) under disposal which are the averments/reasons for delay in filing the appeal read as under:-
"2. That the Hon'ble District Forum/Commission has passed order on 22/02/2022 which was received by the counsel of the applicant on 25/02/2022. The counsel of the applicant tried to communicate on 26/02/2022 and 27/02/2022 but due to unavoidable reason could not contact to the applicant and hence the order was received by the applicant on 28/02/2022 form the counsel.
3. That after reading the order applicant discussed the order with his family member and decided to file the appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission. Applicant contacted to his counsel on 07/03/2022 an instructed to file the appeal. The certified copy of the complete judicial file was applied on 09/03/2022 which was supplied on 11/03/2022.
5. That after receiving the certified copy of the judicial file on 11/03/2022 applicant requested to file appeal as early as possible and within limitation period. The counsel of the applicant prepared the appeal within time."DISMISSED Page 3 of 8
FA/44/2022 MR. PAWAN GAUR VS VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. D.O.D. 11.05.2023
8. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides 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."
9. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an impugned order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of such order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 22.02.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 01.04.2022 with a delay of eight days.
10. In order to condone the delay of eight days, the appellant have 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:-
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the DISMISSED Page 4 of 8 FA/44/2022 MR. PAWAN GAUR VS VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. D.O.D. 11.05.2023 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."
11. 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'ble NCDRC 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 Anshul Aggarwal 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 DISMISSED Page 5 of 8 FA/44/2022 MR. PAWAN GAUR VS VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. D.O.D. 11.05.2023 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 appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."
12. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022decided 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 Popat Bahiru Goverdhane 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.DISMISSED Page 6 of 8
FA/44/2022 MR. PAWAN GAUR VS VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. D.O.D. 11.05.2023
13. 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 explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
14. Reverting back to the material available on record, we find that the impugned order was passed on 22.02.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 24.03.2022. The applicant/appellant has averred in para no.2 of the application, under disposal that his counsel has received copy of impugned order on 25.02.2022. The applicant/appellant has averred in para no.3 of the application, under disposal that certified copy of the judicial file was applied on 09.03.2022 which was received by the applicant/appellant on 11.03.2022.
15. However, if we exclude the time period from 22.02.2022 to 25.02.2022 during which the certified copy of impugned order dated 22.02.2022 was received on 25.02.2022, there is a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. Moreover, the applicant/appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within stipulated period to condone the delay. Each and every day's delay has to be explained by the applicant/appellant. Keeping in view the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that no cogent reason has been explained by the appellant.
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 applicant/appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
DISMISSED Page 7 of 8FA/44/2022 MR. PAWAN GAUR VS VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. D.O.D. 11.05.2023
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 11.05.2023.
DISMISSED Page 8 of 8