Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member
Veera Shekar and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Hemalatha and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.1612 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 20/10/2017 in Complaint No. 73/2011 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu)
Decided on 5.7.2019
For the Appellants:Mr.Shilp Vinod, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr.Nandini Ram and Mr. S. Ranga Ramanujam, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal should not be allowed after execution proceeding if delay is not explained properly.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(a)—Appeal—Delay of 238 Days—Inexplicable and incomprehensible explanation described for delay—Dispute on booking of flat—Complainant seeking refund of money due to no progressing in construction of flat—No merit in explanation for delay or in appeal—Appellants woke up in this matter only after the execution notice was received by them—State Commission directed to refund a sum of Rs.2500000 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization and Rs.500000- as compensation with cost of Rs.5000/-—Appeal against—Held that, This was an extreme variety of unfair trade practice, bordering on a fraud. The pleas of appellant are obviously completely frivolous and can only be rejected outright. [Paras 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member—This First Appeal No.1612 of 2018 has been filed with a delay of 238 days against the impugned order of the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, ‘State Commission’) dated 20.10.2017. Vide this order, the State Commission, in C.C. No.73 of 2011 had allowed the complaint partly and directed the appellants no.1 to 3 OPs (hereinafter ‘OPs’), jointly and severally, as below
“a) to refund a sum of Rs.2500000- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization and
b) to pay a sum of Rs.500000- as compensation for mental agony and hardship undergone by the complainants within one month from the date of this order failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of realization and
c) to pay Rs.5000- as costs to the complainants.
Time for compliance one month.”
2. Instead of complying with the order of the State Commission, which by any standard was very reasonable, in the facts of the case, the OPs have chosen to file this appeal, with a delay of 238 days as per the Registry and 229 as per their application for condonation of delay.
3. This appeal was filed on 10.09.2018. The reasons to explain the delay as in the application for delay are
(i) certified copy of the impugned order dated 20.10.2017 was ready on 21.11.2017 and was dispatched to the appellants’ counsel on 12.12.2017 and the same was received by the counsel on 16.12.2017.
(ii) counsel for the appellants immediately sought to meet the appellants, and appellant no.1 instructed his office to do the needful.
(iii) all legal and court matters including the subject matter are looked after by one M. Palaniappan.
(iv) On 29.06.2018, the appellants received notice of the State Commission in EA No.6 of 2018; immediately, appellant no.1 enquired from his office ie. Mr. Palaniappan, about the case. It is then that he realized that the appeal had not been filed. The reason was that Mr. Palaniappan had gone to his home town for some personal reasons Pongal festival has been mentioned. Also, while leaving for his home town, he had instructed his colleague to process the matter but they failed to do so.
(v) Mr. Palaniappan resumed office (date not mentioned). However, since he was certain that in his office, his colleague would have done the needful, he did not enquire about the case. It is also mentioned here that the company was facing a severe financial crisis and defending three dozen cases in different fora. So this was also a reason why Mr. Palaniappan was suffering from various diseases and was often under treatment and therefore did not enquire about the appeal in the instant case.
(vi) Upon receipt of summon dated 26.06.2018, the appellants contacted the present counsel; he prepared the appeal in second week of July and forwarded the same to the company for approval, signatures etc.. The appellant confirmed and signed on 11.08.2018. On 5.9.2018, counsel received the papers and on 6.9.2018, he filed the appeal.
4. This rather inexplicable and incomprehensible explanation described in para above has been described as an explanation for delay which neither wilful nor wanting. Some other arguments like “sufficient cause” receiving a liberal construction etc., on the basis of some citations, have been also parroted.
5. At this stage, it seems useful to also look at the salient facts of this consumer complaint. The respondentscomplainants (hereinafter complainants) had paid Rs.25 Lakh to the OPs against booking of a flat, bearing no.3-F, on the third floor of A-Block of the project “Marvel City” at 110 Cross Street, Washermenpet, Chennai. Vide agreement signed between the parties dated 27.07.2007, the flat was to be completed and delivered to the complainants within 18 months. On 17.07.2009, the complainants, realizing that the project was not progressing well at all and that completion within time
