STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

1.   Line Manager, Country Vacations, A Division of Country Club (India) Ltd., SCO No.44-45, Second Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, U.T.Chandigarh 160009

2.  Chairman and Managing Director, Country Club India Limited, Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opposite Secretariat, Hyderabad 500063

                                                                                                            ……Appellants

                                        V e r s u s

Dr.(Mrs.) Sarita Saini, H.No.617, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, GAMDA Mohali, Kharar, Distt. Mohali 140301      

                                                                                           ...Respondent

           Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 06.10.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in          Consumer Complaint No.389/2017..

Argued by:  Mr.Pardeep Sharma, Advocate for the applicants/appellants

                     Dr.Sarita Saini, respondent/complainant in person. 

BEFORE:       JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                       MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                    Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed this appeal against order dated 06.10.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(II), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only), vide which  complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed directing the appellants to refund an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh with interest @12% p.a. from the date of agreement i.e. 17.12.2013 till realization.  Further an amount of Rs.5000/- was granted towards litigation cost. Awarded amount was ordered to be paid in a period fixed, failing which it was to entail further penal amount.   

 2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that on a false promise made by the appellants/OPs to provide service of stay for a period of 6 nights and 7 days per year in the properties owned by Country Club India Ltd. (appellants) an agreement was signed on 17.12.2013.  It was specifically stated that till 27.4.2016, despite making requests, accommodation was not provided for her stay. It was further stated that request was made in the year 2014 to provide accommodation in Bangkok, Thailand, as promised, however, she failed to get any response. Even she was refused accommodation in the property of appellants at Bangalore. She was given accommodation at Kovalum, Kerala for a week on payment of charges of Rs.7800/-. However, accommodation provided  was not upto the mark.  She had to pay extra Rs.700/- for another room.

3.             Upon notice, reply was filed by the OPs denying  the material facts.   It was further denied  that the  complainant ever requested for reservation  at Bangkok, Thailand or at Country Club Hotel at Dubai and UAE.   As requested, accommodation was provided to the  complainant in the properties owned by the appellants at Kerala. 

4.               Both parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and arguments addressed, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in providing service and accordingly vide impugned order dated 6.10.2017 the amount was ordered to be paid. 

5.             When this appeal was filed, it was barred by limitation of 46 days. To condone the said delay, an application was filed.  We have gone through the application and accompanied affidavit. Sufficient explanation has not been given as to why delay has occurred.  It is only stated that certified copy of the  order dated 6.10.2017 was prepared by the office on 27.10.2017 and it was received by the appellants on 6.11.2017.  It is further stated that one Sh.Ravi Sharma  directed Counsel for the appellants to prepare appeal in the last week of November,2017. There is nothing on record to show that what prevented Ravi Sharma not to act in a reasonable manner.  What for the file was retained by him between 6.11.2017 till the last week of November,17, has not been explained. It is further stated that  the Counsel drafted the  appeal and sent it for vetting to the abovenamed person.  When it was prepared and when it was sent, has not been explained. It is further stated that said Ravi Sharma left the appellants on 15.12.2017, without handing over his charge to the next senior officer and without finalizing draft of the appeal to be filed. On 1.1.2018, when Sh.Karan Dev Singh joined in his place, who then came to know about non-filing of appeal.  Thereafter, necessary action was taken and  appeal was filed on 23.1.2018. Why Sh.Karan Dev Singh took such time in filing appeal when admittedly demand draft qua the fee to be deposited has already been prepared on 5.12.2017. Explanation given does not inspire confidence. A litigant has to explain each day’s delay and this fact is lacking in the application.

6.              No doubt, the Courts are very lenient in condoning the delay.  However, in cases, where no explanation is offered, such a compassion cannot be shown in favour of the litigant. The Hon’ble  Supreme court in  Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, V(2010) SLT 790-III, (2010) CLT 201 (SC),  observed as under:-

“The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its  power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.”

               Further in Basawaraj & Anr Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (2013)14 SCC81, the Hon’ble Supreme held as under ;

                “The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent  a litigant to  approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

 7.         In the instant case, as no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 46 days, in filing the appeal, the application, thus, stands dismissed. Consequently, appeal also  fails, and the same is  dismissed.

8.              Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.