M/S. SNEH DEVELOPERS & ANR. vs Y.D. RAJENDRA

These three Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Real Estate Developers, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against a common order, dated 16.02.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission"), in First Appeals No.1131, 1132 and 1133 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioners herein against a common order, dated 05.09.2012, passed by the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short the "District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 2243, 2244 and 2245 of 2011. By the said order, while allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners herein to refund a sum of 9,00,000/- in each of the cases to the Complainants with interest @ 18% p.a. from 17.02.2010, till actual payment, by getting the respective sale deeds cancelled at the Petitioners costs. Additionally, the Petitioners were directed to pay a sum of 5,000/- each to the Complainants towards litigation costs.

Since the afore-noted Complaints/Appeals, involving a common issue and same Opposite Parties, have been disposed of by the Forums below by their respective common orders, these Revision Petitions are also being disposed of by this common order.

Against the sale consideration of 9,00,000/- and subsequent execution of registered Sale-Deed(s), on 17.02.2010, each of the Complainants had purchased a site, admeasuring 2400 sq. ft., from the Petitioners in their Layout, christened as "Sneha Lakeside?. Though the Petitioners had publicized that all basic amenities, like drinking water, overhead water tank, electricity and street lights, compound walls on all sides of the layout, club house, independent sewage treatment plant etc. would be provided but after execution of the Sale-Deeds, the said amenities were not provided to the Complainants. Whenever the Complainants approached the Petitioners in this regard, they were assured that the needful would be done but all in vain. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not providing the said basic amenities, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainants had prayed for a direction to the Petitioners to provide the said amenities; compensation by way of interest @ 12% p.a. on the consideration amount, viz. 1,88,186/-, from 17.02.2010 to 18.11.2011, as also 5,000/- as compensation for inconvenience caused and costs of proceedings.

Upon contest, the District Forum allowed the Complaints and issued the aforesaid directions to the Petitioners.

Unsuccessfully challenging the orders passed by the District Forum before the State Commission, the Petitioners are before us in the present Revision Petitions.

It is pointed out by the Office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, in as much as there is a delay, ranging between 221 and 224 days, in filing the same. Identical Applications, praying for condonation of the said delay, have been filed along with the Revision Petitions. In paragraphs 4 - 8 of the said Applications, the Petitioners have furnished the following explanation: "4. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an elderly person of 69 years. He was admitted in Sushruta Medical Aid & Research Hospital Ltd., The Bangalore Hospital? for Intracerebral Hemotoma, Hypertension and Bronchial Asthma on 08.03.2016. He was discharged from the Hospital only on 21.03.2016.

The Petitioner submits that due to such grievous illness affecting the brain of the Petitioner the Petitioner was advised by the doctor to take bed rest for 8 to 9 months. The delay caused in filing the present Revision Petition was absolutely beyond the control of the Petitioner.

That the Petitioner submits that due to the aforementioned medical condition the Petitioner was unable to devote time and attention to the matter.

That the petitioner submits that it is only in third week of January, 2017 the Petitioner felt clinically stable and then approached its counsel in end January, 2016 to file the present revision petition in question. It is submitted that the steps were taken by the Petitioner''s Advocates on an immediate basis to complete papers, obtain signatures and thereafter the matter is now being filed on 13.04.2017.

It is submitted that this delay is due to the ill health of the Petitioner but there is no deliberate negligence. It is only due to personal extenuating circumstances that proper follow up could not take place. The Petitioner should not be put to terms or face difficulties on account of problems/issues which arose due to his elderly age accompanying sickness. The Petitioner has a good case on merits and submits that on technicalities, it should not be non-suited."

Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay, we are of the opinion that the explanation furnished is wholly unsatisfactory.

A perusal of "free copy? of the impugned order, dated 16.02.2016, placed on record, shows that the same had been issued to the Petitioners on 03.06.2015. Going by the same, the Petitioners were required to file the Revision Petitions within a stipulated period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, i.e. or before 01.09.2015, but the same have been filed only on 13.04.2017, with inordinate delay of 224 days, over and above the said period. The said delay is sought to be explained on the sole ground that N.S. Mukund, an elderly person of 69 years, Proprietor and Managing Director of Petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively, was hospitalized from 08.03.2016 to 21.03.2016 for treatment of the diseases, indicated in the Application, and since he was advised bed rest for 8 - 9 months, the Revision Petitions could not be filed within time. In support of the said plea, a copy of the discharge summary (page 228-229), issued by Sushruta Medical Aid & Research Hospital Ltd., has been placed on record. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that though the said N.S. Mukund was hospitalized during the aforesaid period, but it nowhere records that he was advised bed-rest for 8-9 months. On the contrary, it is recorded in the discharge slip that "Now he is clinically stable and hence being discharged? and "Review after 1 week?. In this view of the matter, the stated plea does not merit acceptance. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the state of affairs was in fact so and the said N.S. Mukund had been advised bed rest for the said period, having suffered two adverse orders from the Forums below and bearing in mind the resultant ramifications involved in the matter, he could have authorized somebody to pursue the Revision Petitions on his behalf but that was not to be. Except for the said bald, no other plea is forthcoming from the Petitioners.

In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that apart from the fact that the Applications lack bonafides, the Petitioners have failed to make out any cause, much less a "sufficient cause" for condonation of the aforesaid inordinate delay in filing of the present Revision Petitions. We are convinced that condonation of such unexplained delay would cause further harassment to the hapless Complainants, who, despite having parted with considerable sums as far back as in the year 2010 in the fond hope that they would have comfortable living in their own houses are still waiting for basic amenities and congenial surroundings.

Consequently, all the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.