M/S. GANGA BUILDERS & PRAMOTERS vs JAGDISH GUPTA

This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Developer, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, against the order, dated 28.01.2009, passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Dehradun (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.164/2002. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly accepted the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner, and directed it to register shops no. L-50 and L-49 in the name of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of the order and also to handover the possession of the same, after receiving the remaining sale consideration of 5,15,472/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, after adjusting the interest on the amount of 25,000/-, deposited by the Complainant as advance.

The impugned order by the State Commission came to be passed in modification of the order, dated 29.08.2002, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Hardwar (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.225 of 1998, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, whereby the District Forum had allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to make available the shops in question to the Complainant within a period of three months from the date of that order, after accepting the cost of the shops @ 1000/- per square feet. The Complainant was also directed to pay the remaining amount in annual installments of 50,000/- and in the event of default, the Petitioner was held to be entitled to get the remaining amount in one go. Besides, the Petitioner was also directed to pay/adjust simple interest @ 12% per annum on the earnest money deposited by the Complainant from the date of deposit till the handing over of the shops in question as also 10,000/- towards compensation and 2000/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days or to adjust the same in the cost of the shops.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

The office has reported that there is a delay of 91 days in filing the present Revision Petition. An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition. However, since the Petitioner was not aware about such delay and had not even mentioned the number of days sought to be condoned in the prayer clause of the application, vide order dated 03.08.2010 the Petitioner was permitted to file a fresh application. Accordingly, a fresh application has been filed. In paragraphs 4 - 5 of the said application, the explanation furnished is as under:

"4. That the petitioner most respectfully submits that the impugned judgment and final order passed on 28/01/2009, the certified copy of the said order received by the assistant legal officer of petitioner. The petitioner/company and assistant legal officer have decided to challenge the impugned order before this Hon''ble Commission and Directors were instructed their legal officer to send the case papers and instructions at New Delhi for prefer revision petition. The assistant legal officer of the company was resigned for the reasons his long mental illness and without prior information. Accordingly, the company has appointed newly assistant legal officer on 17/04/2009. Office of the company while newly renovating and during the painting of its office, it surprisingly came to know that and searching and keeping all files in order, the impugned order dated 28/01/2009 and alongwith all case papers found in the office of the company itself on 27/05/2009, the petitioner came to know that the aforesaid petition is not filed before the Hon''ble Commission, immediately the newly appointed legal officer informed the same and the directors approached the advocate at New Delhi, the counsel at New Delhi was informed the petitioner to translate the impugned order and order of Ld. District Forum and related documents immediately as it was in vernacular language at same time he informed the petitioner to get all the records of the Commission below. Accordingly, petitioner obtained all the case papers above said and it was some time was consumed as the records of the District forum was sent at Hon''ble State Commission for hearing of appeal, after receiving the same, the Ld. District forum was pleased to provide the related documents above said, some time was consumed to translate the vernacular documents in to English and finally without any delay and latches the petitioner had provided the entire case papers and instructions on 20/07/2009 to counsel at New Delhi, the petitioner came once at New Delhi in the middle of June, 2009 but counsel was during court

vacation he was out of station. The counsel for petitioner after receiving the case papers on 20/07/2009, he had filed the aforesaid petition on 29/07/2009 without any further delay.

That the petitioner submits that the delay was occurred for the reasons the assistant legal officer fell mental illness and he is not informed to the company. There were some time was consumed to obtain the records of the commission below and some time was consumed for translating the vernacular documents in to English.

We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.

In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory. Though the impugned order had been passed by the State Commission on 28.01.2009 and admittedly on the said date the copy of the said order had been received by the Assistant Legal Officer of the Petitioner, yet the Petitioner took 91 days, over and above the stipulated period of 90 days, in filing the present Revision Petition. The cursory manner in which the Petitioner has pursued the matter could be gauged from the fact that after its former Legal Officer had resigned, due to his ill-health, the Petitioner took more than two months in assigning the case to another Assistant Legal Officer, who also did not take any action in the matter till 27.05.2009, when surprisingly the Petitioner came to know that no Revision Petition had been filed before this Commission. The date-wise developments in processing the matter at the Petitioner''s end, viz., (i) when the former Legal Officer had resigned; (ii) when the Petitioner requisitioned the necessary documents from its Legal Officer; (iii) when the Petitioner assigned the matter to its Counsel at New Delhi; (iv) when the Petitioner came to know that certain documents in vernacular were required to be translated; (v) how much time was consumed in undertaking the said exercise etc., are conspicuously absent in the application. The plea of the Petitioner regarding illness of its earlier Legal Officer is also not supported by any medical record. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that it was engaged in litigation in a number of cases and therefore, lost track of the present case. In our view, the explanation furnished lacks bonafides. We feel that the Petitioner is trying to somehow gain time for complying with the directions issued by the District Forum more than a decade ago and affirmed by the State Commission in the year 2009, to the detriment of the Complainant. As per the agreement the possession of the shops in question was to be delivered in the year 1992.

Bearing in mind the afore-stated lackadaisical attitude of the Petitioner as also 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 highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 91 days in filing of the present Revision Petition, particularly when the litigation between the parties dates back to the year 1999.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation.