The main legal point established in the judgment is the refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal, based on the provisions of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act and the legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the NCDRC regarding the condonation of delay in consumer matters.

ORDER :

Anil Srivastava, Member

The present appeal has been preferred in this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Regent Technofeb Pvt. Ltd., for short appellant, assailing the orders dated 18.5.15 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (Central) in the matter of Harish Solanki, hereinafter referred to as respondent, granting the respondents the refund with interest as also the compensation.

2. The facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are these.

The complainant/respondent had purchased a Regent Farming Machine model No. 2028-B from the OP for a sum of Rs. 8,87,400. An amount of Rs. 90,000 was paid to the appellant in cash after entering into an agreement for the purchase of the said machine. As per Clause 7 of the agreement, the appellant had undertaken the job to install and to commission the plant at the complainant/ respondent place. A sum of Rs. 6,50,000 was paid in terms of the agreement on 7.6.2014 and on further demand, a sum of Rs. 6,50,000 was also paid. This way the entire payment for the purpose was made.

3. It was later found that the machine so supplied to him and installed at his place was an old machine. The respondent/complainant had made an appeal to the appellant/OP to replace the old machine with a new one. This request was not acceded to despite many efforts having been done and many requests having been made. Legal notice were also sent but of no avail. Finally complaint was filed before the learned District Fora, praying for the relief as under:

(a) A sum of Rs. 8,05,000 (INR eight lakh five thousand only) as the amount paid by the complainant.

(b) Interest on the amount of Rs. 8,05,000 (INR eight lakh five thousand only) @ 24% p.a. from the date of agreement and thereafter upto the date of payment.

(c) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation for harassment and mental agony due to the arbitrary act of OP.

(d) A sum of Rs. 35,000 for the litigation costs.

(e) Any other or further relief as in the opinion of this Hon’ble Forum may be considered fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. The learned District Fora disposed of the complaint issuing following directions to the appellant:

1. To pay to the complainant Rs. 8,05,000 along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 23.9.2014 till payment.

2. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation for causing harassment, pain and mental agony as well as litigation charges.

3. Take back the machine from the premises for the complainant after the aforesaid payment.

4. The OP shall pay the amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount of @ 10% per annum. If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Sections 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

5. Aggrieved by the said orders the appellant have approached this Commission praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Fora on the ground that the impugned order is bad both on fact and in law. The appellant have further stated that the case is hit by the mis-joinder of the parties. The District Fora has also failed to appreciate the arguments submitted before them. Since there was delay in filing the said appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed.

6. The respondent were put to notice both on the appeal as also on the application for condonation of delay and in response thereto the respondent, have filed reply to the application for condonation of delay. They have objected to the condonation of delay as the delay done is substantial. Besides no cogent or tangible grounds or reasons have been submitted therefor.

The matter was listed before us on 21.9.2017 when Counsel for both sides appeared and advanced their arguments. We have perused the records of the case.

7. In the first instance we note that th