Back
2012(1) CPR 372
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH
Sham Sunder, President and Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
Ravinder Pal Singh —Appellant
versus
Ashutosh Goyal @ Ashu Goyal
& Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 54 of 2012
Decided on 1.3.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Even if sufficient cause is shown Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone delay.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Limitation Act , 1963—Section 5—Appeal—Limitation—Delay of 1106 days in filing of appeal—Sufficient cause must be a cause, which is beyond control of party—Nothing could be considered to be bonafide which is not done with due care and attention—Delay of 1106 days, which is beyond three years, than normal period of filing appeal under section 15 was on account of complete inaction, and lack of bonafides, attributable to applicant/appellant—Delay in filing appeal was intentional and deliberate—Delay of 1106 days cannot be condoned—Application for condonation of delay and appeal dismissed on ground of delay as well as on merit. (Paras 12 to 19 and 22)
Sham Sunder, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.01.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:-
“In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly, allowed. The OPs are directed to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs.6.50 lacs along with interest @9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the respective deposits till realization, along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment suffered by him at the hands of OPs and for adopting an unfair trade practice by the OPs. The order shall be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they will be liable to pay the amount along with penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.06.2008, till realization. The OPs shall also pay costs of litigation, which is quantified at Rs.500/’’.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant (now respondent no.1), acting on the representations, made by the Opposite Parties, for the allotment of a flat, in their proposed housing project at Baddi (H.P), booked the same (flat), comprising 2 Bedrooms, One Hall, Kitchen and Bathrooms, by paying initial deposit of Rs. 1.00 lac, vide cheque dated 25.10.2005, (infact 26.10.2005), Annexure C-1. Another sum of Rs.5.50 lacs was deposited, vide cheque dated 24.12.2005 (Annexure C-2), towards the balance payment of 50% of the price of the flat. Lateron, the complainant came to know, that no housing project had been allotted or approved, in favour of the Opposite Parties. He then approached the Opposite Parties, a number of times, with a view to ascertain, the status of their project, in which he booked the aforesaid flat, but to no avail. Ultimately, he sought refund, vide letter dated 02.05.2006 (Annexure C-3). After great persuasion, the Opposite Parties, agreed to pay Rs.6.50 lacs, alongwith interest, in lieu of the amount, deposited by the complainant. With a view to discharge their part liability, the Opposite Parties, issued a cheque dated 17.1.2007, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, drawn on the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Panchkula, in favour of the complainant. When the cheque was presented, through the banker, i.e. State Bank of India, Sector 20, Chandigarh, the same was dishonored, on account of insufficient funds, vide dishonor memo dated 25.01.2007 Annexure C-4. At the instance of the Opposite Parties, the complainant, again presented the said cheque on 11.7.2007, through his bankers, aforesaid. It was again returned, as the same stood dishonored, by the bankers of the Opposite Parties, on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2, on his behalf, and, on behalf of the remaining Opposite Parties, had issued a cheque dated 31.3.2007, drawn on the State Bank of India, Attawa, Chandigarh, amounting to Rs.6.50 lacs, towards the discharge of their joint and several liability, but when this cheque was presented for encashment on 11.7.2007, the same also stood dishonored, by the bankers of the Opposite Parties, on account of insufficient funds, in their account, vide memo dated 13.7.2007 Annexure C-8, alongwith which the cheque dated 31.03.2007 Annexure C-7, was attached. Faced with such a piquant situation, the complainant served a legal notice dated 13.8.2007, upon the Opposite Parties, to discharge their legal liability, and to make the payment, alongwith up-to-date interest, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. It was further stated that the complainant, deposited his hard earned money, with the Opposite Parties, for the purchase of the
