1.Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, through its Managing Director.

2.Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office at SCO No.183-184, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Assistant Manager- Sales & Marketing.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Kapil Goyal, S/o Lt. Col. (Retd.), R.C. Goyal, R/o Flat T-226, Block 7, Rangoli Gardens, Village Kanakpura, Jaipur 302034, Rajasthan.

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

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

             This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-

“We also accordingly allow this complaint and order the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.4,64,965/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 24.04.2012, till its payment to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties shall also pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant towards costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on Rs.Rs.4,64,965/- from the date of this order, till its realization, apart from costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.”

2.           

3.           

4.            

5.           

6.           

7.            8.           

9.           Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 108 days, as per the applicants/appellants (as per the office report 94 days), was filed by them, wherein, it was stated that certified copy of the order impugned dated 24.01.2014, was received in their office, at Chandigarh, on 29.01.2014. It was further stated that after going through the order impugned, it was decided to challenge the same, in this Commission, and, as such, the case file was sent to their Delhi Office, for seeking approval, for filing an appeal, where the same (case file), had to pass through many channels. It was further stated that after seeking approval, from Delhi Office, the case file was sent to the Advocate concerned, for filing the appeal. It was further stated that, on account of this reason, there was delay, in filing the appeal. It was further stated that delay, in filing the appeal, was neither intentional, nor deliberate. Accordingly, the prayer, referred to above, was made.

10.            

11.             Smt.Tara Wanti Vs State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab & Haryana 32,a case decided by a Full Bench of the   held as under:-