Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/578

SUNIL PARASHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI HOME FINANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

[[[[                                      Date of Arguments: 01.05.17

                                       Date of decision      09.05.17                           

First Appeal No. 578/2011

 

In the matter of:

Shri Sunil Prashar

S/o Shri J.P.Sharma

R/o Qurter No. T-99-B

Loco Shad, Sarai Rohilla

Kishan Ganj,

Delhi-110006.                                                                                                                                    ….Appellant

                                                                                    Versus

1. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd.

    Videocon Tower, Ist Floor

    E-1, Jhandewalan Extn.,

    New Delhi-110055.

 

2. Shri Ajay Chaudhary (Prop.)

    M.M.Construction

    Plot No. 27, Sector-5

    Rajendra Nagar, G.T.Road

    Near Rajendra Nagar Police Chowki

    Sahibabad, Ghaziabad                                                                                               …..Respondents

       

CORAM

HON’BLE SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER           

1.     ^{Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the  Judgement?  Yes}

 ^{2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes}

Hon’ble Shri O.P.GUPTA

                                JUDGEMENT

 

            The complainant has impugned order dated 28.07.11 passed by District Forum dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint and consequently the complaint as well as being barred by limitation.

2.         The case set up by complainant/appellant was that  they agreed to purchase flat No. 103, MIG Flat, Delhi  in plot No. 27,  Sector 5, Rajendra Nagar, G.T. Road, Near Rajendra  Nagar, Chowki Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.  It paid Rs. 1,70,000/-  and agreed to pay remaining amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- at the time of execution of sale deed after availing loan facility from bank/OP II. They approached the bank for sanction of loan and paid the processing fee. However the bank declined to release the loan without any reason. The bank misappropriated the amount with the connivance of builder.  The complainant met the Manager of the Bank and paid the processing fee second time.  He issued six post dated cheques in favour of the bank.

3.         On 22.07.05 complainant approached OP 2 for execution of sale deed but it refused to do so by saying that loan amount has not been credited in their account and they had sold the property to some other person.

4.         The complainant filed an application for condonation of delay with plea that they engaged Shri B.A.Hashmi, Advocate for drafting notice and paid his fee. The advocate obtained their signatures on complaint and affidavit on 08.05.08 and assured that complaint would be filed before District Consumer Forum.  On further enquiry the counsel went on assuring that complaint had been filed and the district forum could not dispose of the same due to lack of  coram.  On 20.01.11 it was revealed that complaint has not been filed at all. They made complaint dated 11.02.11 to Bar Council of Delhi against misconduct of the advocate.

5.         The District Forum found that complainant came to know before 15.06.05 that OP 1/Bank did not disburse the loan amount after receiving the processing fee.  The complainants were told by OP 2 on 20.08.05 that they have sold the plot.  The complaint before Consumer Forum could be filed within two years from the said date. Thus engaging Shjri B.A.Hashmi, Advocate and filing the complaint in March 2008 itself was barred by limitation.  There is no explanation for delay from 19.08.07 to 08.05.08. It did not appeal to mind that after putting signatures on complaint on 08.05.08 the complainant did not visit the consumer forum till 20.01.11 to find out the filing of the complaint and progress therein.  The case law cited by the complainant in Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramnik Lal Shah & Others vs. Lata Construction 1(1996) CPJ 81 (NC) was on different facts.  In that case the possession could not be delivered to the purchaser due to want of  occupancy certificate.

6.         The appeal has been filed on 18.10.11.  Appeal is barred by limitation.  No application for condonation of delay has been filed.  According to para 4 of the appeal  copy of impugned order was provided to the appellant on 29.08.11.  Despite that there is no reason why the appeal was not filed till 18.10.11.

7.         The Respondent No. 2 took this objection in para 4 of its reply.  Despite that the appellant has not moved any application for condonation of delay.

8.         We have gone though the material on record and heard the arguments.  The appellant is not vigilant at all. He filed the complaint beyond limitation. Even then he remained negligent in filing the appeal and again filed the appeal beyond limitation.

9.         So the appeal is liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation. Even on merits we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. The same is well reasoned.  The complainant contacted his counsel after expiry of limitation, counsel allegedly did not file the complaint for another about two years.  So even if complainant is believed to have contacted his counsel for 2008 as alleged, still the same could not save the limitation to file complaint which has already expired in 2007.

            Appeal is dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            Copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                     (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER(JUDICIAL)