IMPORTANT POINT
Where relief has been claimed only regarding deficiency in service, value of flats cannot be added in reliefs claimed.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in SC Case No. CC/239/2014 – Southern Apartment Owners Association Vs. Housing Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. by which, complaint was not admitted for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant Association is comprising of members of flat owners of Southern Apartment, who purchased flats from OP/respondent. Complainant filed complaint regarding deficiency in the flats and prayed as under:

“a) an order for recasting of damaged roof & through repairs of vertical wall of entire Southern Apartment, in default to pay the complainants amounting to Rs.25 lakhs to the complainants without further delay.

b) an order against the Opposite party directing them to insure the whole apartment for five years with any Nationalized Insurance Company for Flats, provide Fire Licence and to set up Buffer under the Generator and to supply the Lift Load Test Certificate, in default a direction be given upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant.

c) an order against the opposite parties directing them to provide 1/3rd share of Community Hall and also to provide free egress and ingress through common passage and also be directed to set up an Apex Committee in default to pay Rs.15 lakhs to the complainants.

d) an order against the opposite party directing them to complete the proceedings of Registration of Association for Flat Owner before the authority concerned Govt. of West Bengal in default to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainants.

e) an order against the opposite party directing them to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation”.

Learned State Commission observed that if cost of value of flats and amount of compensation in relief clause is taken together, it would exceed Rs.1 crore beyond jurisdiction of learned State Commission; hence, complaint was not maintainable against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4. As far condonation of delay is concerned, as per application, there is delay of 142 days in filing appeal whereas, as per office report, there is delay of only 8 days in filing appeal. Respondent has also filed reply to application for condonation of delay. Appellant has filed replica to the application for condonation of delay. Perusal of application for condonation of delay reveals that certified copy of impugned order was applied on 23.12.2014 which was delivered on 26.12.2014 and appeal has been filed on 2.2.2015. Office has wrongly calculated period of delay in filing appeal and in fact, there is delay of 142 days in filing appeal, as appellant moved application for certified copy after 4 months 10 days and received certified copy within 3 days; so, only period of obtaining certified copy is to be excluded from period allowed for filing appeal whereas, office has calculated period of delay from the receipt of certified copy which is apparently wrong. No doubt, there is delay of 142 days in filing appeal, but looking to the legal question involved, I deem it appropriate to condone delay of 142 days in filing appeal subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost with Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission in the light of latest judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120-10121 of 2014 – Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr; (2) Civil Appeal No. 10289 of 2014 – A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India; and (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 – Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors. by which delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively in filing revision petition was condoned.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned S