AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by a Real Estate Developer, namely, Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, against the order dated 31.05.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 254 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while partly accepting the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant, the Respondent herein, has directed the Appellant to refund to the Complainant a sum of 21,00,000/-, which had been deposited by him, with simple interest @ 15% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits, besides paying 1,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment, as also escalation in prices, and 50,000/- as litigation costs, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, failing which the amount of refund would carry penal interest @ 18% compounded quarterly, instead of simple interest @ 15% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits till realization, and the amounts of compensation and litigation costs would carry penal interest @ 18% compounded quarterly from the date of passing of the order till realization.
The circumstances, necessitating filing of the Complaint, as culled out from the impugned order, are as under: 2.1 Upon deposit of a sum of 21,00,000/- (20,00,000/- towards sale consideration @ 10,000/- per sq. yard and 1,00,000/- as Preferential Location Charges) by the Complainant with the Appellant, on 22.07.2014 a Plot Buyer''s Agreement in respect of a plot, admeasuring 200 sq. yards, was entered into between the parties. It was the say of the Complainant that despite several visits and requests, the possession of the plot was not delivered to him by the Appellant. It was alleged that taking advantage of the action of GMADA in demanding EDC @ 642/- per sq. yard from the Appellant, the Appellant was charging EDC @ 1,600/- per sq. yard from the allottees and interest @ 21% p.a. on delayed payments, amounting to 16,17,715/-, which was totally arbitrary and illegal.
2.2 In the aforesaid background, alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellant in not delivering the possession of the plot in question; overcharging the EDC by 958/- per sq. yard; and also charging high interest @ 21% p.a. on delayed payments, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission. The Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Appellant to refund to him 21,00,000/- along with interest @ 21 p.a. w.e.f. 01.10.2013 together with 2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and 50,000/- as litigation costs.
Upon notice, the Appellant contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version.
On analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the State Commission came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice by the Appellant. Consequently, vide its well-reasoned order, the State Commission partly allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-noted directions to the Appellant. Hence, the present Appeal.
It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 166 days in filing the same. An Application, praying for condonation of the delay, has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 2 - 8 of the same, the Appellant has furnished the following explanation:
"2. That the impugned order is dated 31.5.2016. That as per the certified copy of the impugned order, the same was prepared on 9.6.2016 and dispatched to the Appellant on 10.6.2016. That the same was received by the Appellant on 27.6.2016. That thus, the statutory time to file the present appeal expired on 27.7.2016.
That it is humbly submitted that the Appellant being a company, in the month of July 2016, the matter was placed before the Management to take a necessary legal steps against the order dated 31.05.2016.
That in the month of August 2016 the case was assigned to the Legal Department and accordingly a complete case was demanded from the counsel of the Appellant before the State Commission.
That counsel of the appellant took August & September 2016 and thereafter handed over the legal file to the appellant.
That thereafter in the month of October, 2016 the appellant started searching a competent advocate to pursue the present case before Hon''ble Commission.
That great efforts and endeavor, the appellant in the month of December 2016 found the present counsel and gave the brief to him to file the present case.
That after engagement the counsel for the appellant started working on the case and got typed the annexures to be filed with the present case and the same had taken 20 days time to get it typed from typist."
(Emphasis supplied)
In my view, the explanation furnished by the Appellant is not only unsatisfactory, it is not bonafide as well. Although I have serious doubt about the receipt of free copy of the impugned order after 17 days of its dispatch within the city, yet even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that it was so, even thereafter the Appellant took one month in transmitting the case file to its Legal Department and obtaining the same from its local Advocate. The said Advocate, merrily, took two months time in handing over the case file to the Appellant. Though the Appellant claims to have swung into action in the matter on receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order on 27.06.2016, yet, it took six months thereafter and three months after receipt of the case file from the local Advocate in searching and assigning the matter to a Competent Counsel, who, interestingly, happens to be the same Counsel who has been representing the Appellant for quite some time in other matters before this Commission. It is evident that the sole object of the Appellant is to somehow gain time to comply with the directions sought to be impugned in the Appeal. I have no hesitation in holding that the entire explanation is an afterthought, concocted to protract the matter and does not make out any cause, much less a "sufficient cause" for condonation of inordinate delay of 166 days in filing the present Appeal. Further, in the event of the said unexplained delay being condoned and the Appeal entertained, the Complainant, who, despite having parted with a huge sum of 21,00,000/- as far as in the year 2013 with the fond hope of getting a plot and a roof over his head, has neither got the possession of the plot nor the refund of the amount deposited, would be put to further harassment and financial loss.
In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we have also kept in mind the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578], to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained.
Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed on the short ground of limitation.