Delhi

StateCommission

FA/672/2013

U-TURN HOUSING (P). LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

POONAM CHAD VERMA & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                                                         Date of Decision : 1.9.2015

Arguments heard on 21.08.2015

First Appeal No. 672/13

First Appeal No. 673/13

First Appeal No. 674/13

First Appeal No. 675/13

First Appeal No. 676/13

First Appeal No. 814/12

First Appeal No. 815/12

In the matter of

U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its office at 1507,

Ambadeep Building

14, kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110 001.

……Appellant

Versus

1. Poonam Chand Verma

S/o Sh. Brij Lal Verma

R/o B-12-A, IFFCO Colony,

Uday nagar, Gandhi Dham Nagar

Kuchh, Gujarat-370201.

2. Urmila Verma

W/o Sh. P.C. Verma

R o B-12-A, IFFCO Colony,

Uday nagar, Gandhi Dham Nagar

Kuchh, Gujarat-370201.

3. Nikhil Tripathi

S/o Sh. R.K. Tripathi

R/o 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110 001

4. Ms. Radha Krishna Tripathi

D/o Mr. Ram Avtar Tripathi

U Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.

1507, Amba Deep Building

14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110 001

5. Mr. Sushil Kumar Varshney

S/o Mr. Ramesh Chandra Vashney

U Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.

1507, Amba Deep Building

14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110 001

•  
•  

Salma Noor, Member

O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. By this common order we shall be deciding application for condonation of delay moved by the appellant in seven appeals.       
2. The appeal has been preferred against order dated 9.10.12 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi. Vide impugned order the District Forum held OP guilty of deficiency in services and directed to refund Rs.2,62,500/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of booking till date of payment plus Rs.20,000/- compensation towards harassment including litigation cost.
3. The appeal has been filed on 7.6.13 and is apparently barred by limitation. The appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay.  According to the application there is a delay of 240 days.  The ground tried to be made out for condonation of delay is that the order was received by the appellant in first week of December, 2012. The appellant tried its efforts best to arrange the funds in order to prepare FDR but due to paucity of funds, the appellant was unable to do so.  It was with utmost difficulty that appellant could arrange  funds and get the FDR prepared. Irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the appellant, if delay is not condoned.
4. In reply the respondent has stated that application does not disclose any sufficient cause nor does it explain day-to-day delay in filing the appeal.  The plea taken by the appellant about inability to arrange funds is totally bogus and afterthought.  No documents/material in support of the said condonation is placed on record. The appellant company pursuant to their advertisement for their project of silver city for allotment of plots from general public, collected a huge money running in crores. So the allegation that it had no funds to prepare FDR for filing the present appeal is totally false, motivated and can not be relied upon. 
5. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  The Counsel for the appellant submits that court should take liberal approach while considering ‘sufficient cause’ for the purpose of condonation of delay.  To some extent, the appellant was correct in contending so. But liberal construction does not mean that appellant can be given free hand to come as and when he likes.
6. On the other hand the Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of this Commission in FA No. 905/13 in which also the appellant was a party.  In that case too, there was adelay of 240 days in filing the appeal.  The condonation was refused and reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV(2011) CPJ 63. In the said case it was held as below :-

“It is also opposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.”

7. Now coming to the case in hand the simple plea of the appellant is that it did not have sufficient funds to get the FDR prepared for filing appeal.  The amount of FDR is quite petty being Rs.25,000/-.  It is difficult to believe that a company which promotes the development of land and allotment of the same to innumerable persons and collect huge amount is unable to arrange a petty sum of Rs.25,000/-.
8. Moreover, the appellant has not disclosed as to from where it arranged the fund of Rs.25,000/- after about 240 days.  In the absence of source for arranging the said amount, it is difficult to believe that earlier the appellant did not have the means and suddenly it arranged money.  It has not produced the copy of its bank statements to show what was the financial position of the appellant during those eight months.
9. In view of the above discussions we do not find any sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The application is dismissed.
10. With this the appeal automatically stands dismissed.
11. FDR, if any, be released in favour of appellant as per rule.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.         

          File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)