Haryana

StateCommission

A/1164/2018

M/S M2M BUILDTECH LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

W.C.JUNEJA

19 Oct 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                                First Appeal No.           1164 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution:       09.10.2018

                                                Date of Decision:         19.10.2018

 

 

1.      M2M Buildtech Private Limited, office at D-43, Sector 6, Noida-201301 (U.P) through its Managing Directors/Chairman.

 

2.      M2M Buildtech Private Limited, Branch Office at Kheri Sadh on Delhi Road, Main Road, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak through its Principal Officer.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Surendra Singh son of Shri Fateh Singh, resident of House No.2713, H.B.C., Sector 3, Rohtak, Haryana.

 

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Ms. Manjula, Member.

                            

 

Argued by:          Shri Jitender Singh and Shri Aakash Juneja, Advocates for the appellants

                             Shri Sudeep Singh Gahlawat, Advocate for the respondent-complainant.

                              

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, M2M Buildtech Private Limited and its functionary-opposite parties (for short, ‘builder’) has challenged the order dated May 16^th, 2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Surendra Singh-complainant was allowed. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “8.     In view of the above, complaint succeeds and we award a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- which shall be paid by opposite parties alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of payment to the opposite parties till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision…”

 

2.      Alongwith the appeal, the builder has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 115 days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken in paragraph No.2 of the application is as under:-

“2.     That the delay has been caused due to non-collection of the certified copies of the documents from the learned District Forum, thus, appeal is being re-filed after the delay of 115 days has been caused.”

 

3.      Learned counsel for the builder has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to beyond control.

4.      This Commission has considered the submission made on behalf of the builder. The explanation for the delay caused in filing of the appeal is far from being satisfactory in view of the fact that the builder applied for getting the certified copy of the impugned order on May 16^th, 2018 and the same was supplied on May 18^th, 2018.

5.      The apex court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that:

“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 Fora”.

 

6.      In Balwant Singh Vs.  Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held:                    

“The party should show that besides acting bonafide, 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. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]”.

7.   In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

8.      In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications filed on frivolous grounds are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

9.      Treating the ground taken in the application as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non-challenge. So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 115 days.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

10.    Coming now to the merits of the case. The complainant booked a flat with the builder in the year, 2015. He paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the builder vide receipt Annexure A-1. Thereafter, the builder did not start the project despite collecting money from the public. The builder has not been able to show any justifiable reason not to start the construction. The builder is trying to feather its own nest, that is, to make profit, for itself, at the cost of others. It will be travesty if the complainant is made to suffer for the deliberate, inaction and negligence of the builder. In view of this, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, limitation as well as on merits.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. 

 

 

Announced 19.10.2018

(Manjula) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK