Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Dr. Kulvinder Singh Bahl —Respondent
First Appeal No.1539 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 12/08/2016 in Complaint No. 225/2015 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 9.4.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Rudresh Jagdale, Advocate
For the Respondent: In person
IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal can be dismissed on ground of delay also.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 19 and 21(a)(ii) read with Section 13(2)—Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005—Regulation 13—Real estate—Floor-buyer agreement—Denial of possession of property despite substantial payment—There is delay of 72 days in filing present appeal—No valid ground has been stated for condonation of delay in filing present appeal—Explanation given by appellant that draft of instant appeal remained in custody o clerk of Counsel, does not provide any cogent and convincing explanation for delay of 72 days in filing appeal—Instant appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone—Similarly, there is absolutely no justification for condoning delay in filing written version—Appellants have miserably failed to explain reasons for non-filing of written version to consumer complaint for such a long time and also for their non-appearance on subsequent dates of hearing—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9 to 14)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned orders dated 22.04.2016 and 12.08.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 225/2015, filed by the present respondent, vide which, the right of the appellant/opposite party (OP) to file written version to the consumer complaint was closed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Dr. Kulvinder Singh Bahl filed the consumer complaint no. 225/15 before the Delhi State Commission against the present appellant/OP builder, saying that he had booked a residential space of 1499 sq. ft with them vide application dated 10.09.2011 and a floor-buyer agreement was entered between him and the opposite party on 21.03.2012. The complainant had made a total payment of Rs. 29,39,445/- till the date of making the complaint, which constituted about 80% of the total consideration for the said property. However, even after the expiry of a period of 30 months from the date of the agreement, the OP builder had not been able to provide possession of the said residential property to him, as laid down in the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP builder to refund the sum of Rs. 29,39,445/- deposited by him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay compensation for deficiency in service, litigation cost etc.
3. It has been admitted by the appellant in the grounds of appeal itself that notice of the consumer complaint was sent to the appellant/OP builder and the date of hearing was fixed as 02.12.2015. The OP builder put in appearance before the State Commission on 02.12.2015, on which date, a copy of the complaint was handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant and the matter was adjourned to 22.04.2016. However, the OP builder did not put in appearance on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.04.2016, on which date, the following order was recorded by the State Commission:-
“22.04.2016
C-225/15
Present: Complainant in person.
None for OP.
OP has failed to file written version despite the fact that more than 4 months have expired since OP put an appearance and put up of complaint. Right of OP to file written statement stands closed.
Complainant to file exparte evidence within 8 weeks.
List on 12.8.16.
(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)”
4. On the next date of hearing i.e. 12.08.2016 as well, none appeared for the OP builder before the State Commission and the following order was recorded by the State Commission:-
“12.08.2016
C-225/15
Present: Shri Arun Kumar, counsel for complainant.
None for OP.
Complainant has filed evidence by affidavit.
List for arguments on 2.3.17.
(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)”
5. The present appeal has been filed by the OP builder, challenging the above two orders of the State Commission with the prayer that the said orders should be set aside and the right of the appellant to file written version to the complaint should be restored. The respondent/complainant has filed reply to the memo of appeal, saying that the appeal had been filed after a delay of 71 days and no sufficient grounds had been given for the condonation of such delay. It has further been stated that the learned counsel for the appellant/OP builder is stated to have been unwell on the date of hearing i.e. 22.04.2016. However, no such evidence of any medical treatment had been placed on record to substantiate the version of the OP builder. Even if the learned counsel was unwell, the appellant/OP builder had enough time to file reply to the consumer complaint within the time permissible under law. It is further stated that according to the appellant/OP builder, they had filed an application dated 05.07.2016 before the Stat
