State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Taneja Developers & Infrastructure ... vs Vinod Gupta on 28 July, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 First Appeal No. A/596/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 16/03/2015 in Case No. CC/726/2011 of District New Delhi) 1. M/S TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. 9, K.G. MARG, N.D.-01. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. VINOD GUPTA B-4/41, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, N.D.-29. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: NONE PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 28 Jul 2016 Final Order / Judgement
Present : Shri Srinivas Vijay Kumar alongwith Ms. Ravneet Kaur Counsel for appellant. Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, AR of respondent.
Reply to application for condonation of delay filed. Copy supplied. Heard on application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 230 days. The plea of the appellant is that copy of order was made available to the office of the counsel for appellant, the counsel assigned the matter to Jr. Assistant. Junior prepared first working draft of appeal and pointed out certain quarries to counsel for appellant. On discussion, the working draft was forwarded by junior to the counsel for appellant and to provide clarification. This happened on 22.4.15.
The junior resigned from the office of counsel for appellant n last week of May, 2015. The counsel was under bonafide impression that junior who has left the office has filed the appeal, the counsel was not alarmed. The counsel was handling another appeal titled as Vinod V/s. TDI, the appellant did not contact office for counsel for seeking up date. The computer system on which junior counsel was working crashed ad all data were lost. The counsel has to install a new computer system and only then emails of junior could be restored. This happened in September - October, 2015. One 23.11.15 the appellant informed that notice of execution has been received, on receipt of said notice the counsel made all efforts to trace the appeal and it came to his attention that junior has not taken step to file appeal.
The respondent has opposed the application by filing detailed reply. According to him no single documents have been filed in support of the contentions with respect to delay in filing appeal. It has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal V/s. New Okhla Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court has to keeping mind special period of limitation prescribed under Consumer Protection Act for filing appeals and reasons and objection for expeditious adjudication of consumer dispute will get if court is belayed highly petition against consumer authorized.
The application does not disclose name of junior counsel who was entrusted with drafting of appeal or who resigned from the office of counsel for appellant. Application is not supported by affidavit of said junior. The application disclose negligence and nothing else on the part of appellant. The delay is inordinate being of 230 days.
The application is dismissed. With this the appeal automatically dismissed as debarred by limitation.
At this stage counsel for the appellant makes request for reducing the rate of interest. The counsel for respondent has no objection if the rate is reduced to 12% per annum from 18% per annum provided the appellant makes a time bound statement to pay the amount. The counsel for the appellant states that appellant will make the payment within 60 days at the most.
In view of the above, the order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall refund the amount with the interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of refund. Amount of compensation to stay as it is.
Copy of order be sent to both the parties free of cost. One copy of order be sent to District Forum for intimation.
File be consigned to record room.
( O.P. GUPTA ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) [ NONE] PRESIDING MEMBER