Haryana

StateCommission

A/756/2022

CLARION INN SEVILLA HOTEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER SINGH PARMAR - Opp.Party(s)

VEENU MARWAHA

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:12.12.2022

                Date of final hearing:20.12.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement: 10.01.2023

 

First Appeal No.756 of 2022

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Clarion Inn Sevilla Hotel, Shimla-Kalka Highway, Zirakpur, Haryana.

.….Appellant.

Through Ms. Rshika Bansal, Advocate

Versus

 

Surender Singh Parmar, aged 63 yers, s/o Sh. Shri Raghubir Singh, R/o House No.179, Village Manakpur, Pinjore, District Pnchkula, Haryana.

….Respondent.

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms. Rashika Bansal, counsel for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

Per: S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

                    The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.06.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short ‘District Commission’), vide which complaint bearing No.435 of 2021, filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite party (‘OP’) was directed as under:-

“(i)     To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

(ii)      To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- o the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation charges.”

2.               The brief facts giving rise to the complaint were that complainant on 27.02.2021, booked the banquet hall of OP by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- for performing marriage ceremony of his daughter and finalized all the details inclusive menu etc. for 300 persons. Thereafter, due to Covid lockdown and renewed guidelines announced by Central Government of India, the total gathering was reduced to 100 persons for marriage occasion on 15.03.2021 and arrangements were also revised accordingly. Again, after few days, as per latest instructions and Government guidelines, the gathering was restricted to 50 persons only. It was alleged that again around a week before the marriage, one Shri Rajan informed about the cancellation of the event for the reason that the Government has further reduced the gathering to the extent of only 20 persons, therefore advising the complainant to postpone the marriage function, which of course was not possible as the wedding cards were already got printed and even distributed. Thereafter, complainant had to arrange for a reservation in another hotel and marriage was completed as on the said appointed date 25.04.2021. It was further alleged, after this development that he approached the OP seeking refund of the advance paid by him for banquet hall, but to no effect. Thus, there being deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence the complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to OP, but it failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.12.2021 before learned District Commission.

4.                An application for condonation of delay has also been filed alongwith the appeal.

5.                There is a delay of 137 days in filing the present appeal.  Appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”) for condonation of delay of 137 days wherein, it is alleged that notice of the complaint was allegedly issued to the present appellant-OP on 25.10.2021, however the same was never received by it and vide order dated 06.12.2021, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the present appellant before learned District Commission by observing that neither the notice had been received back undelivered nor AD receipt had been received back and the presumption was drawn that notice had been delivered. The complaint was allowed vide order dated 13.06.2022 however, appellant came to know about the impugned order through notice dated 19.11.2022 only, which was issued for execution application. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

6.                Arguments have been heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal.

7.                File perused.

8.                It is argued by Ms. Rashika Bansal, learned counsel that the booking was not cancelled by the complainant-respondent and even appellant has also not cancelled the event. In fact appellant had made all the arrangements on day for which banquet hall was booked, but the complainant himself never turned up on that day. She further argued that appellant did not receive the summons regarding complaint and it only learnt about the impugned order, when it received the notice of execution application. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal was not intentional and the same may be condoned.

9.                However, the contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay for more than 137 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

10.              Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“It is also apposite 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”.

 

11.                 Even on merits, this Commission do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, Panchkula.  As per the facts and documents available on record, the learned District Commission rightly directed the OP to pay Rs.50,000/-  to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a.  w.e.f. the date of filing of complaint till its realization as well as to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation as mentioned above because the reasons behind all this development were beyond his control.

12.                 Thus, it can be safely concluded that in the complaint under appeal is without merits.  In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 137 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. We also do not find any illegality or fault in the finding given by the learned District Commission on merits. Appellant seems to have adopted a casual approach in filing the present appeal. The present appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed in limine.

13.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 10^th January, 2023

 

                                                                                        S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 

 

           

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 

R.K