M/S. Maa Sarada Construction vs Kaliprasanna Gangopadhyay & 4 Ors

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

This appeal has been filed by M/s MAA Sarada Construction against order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata ('the State Commission') in Complaint case no. CC/607/2017.

Learned proxy counsel for the main counsel for the appellant is present and states that they are not able to contact the appellant to get any instructions in the matter. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that the amount of Rs.10,000/- as ordered by this Commission vide order dated 1st may 2019 has not been paid to respondent no.1. He further states that an amount of Rs.5.00 lakh was to be deposited vide the same order by the appellant and the same has not yet been deposited, therefore, he has already filed an execution, treating as if there is no stay.

Learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 further states that the State Commission gave an order to hand over the flat and register the sale deed of the flat within a period of sixty days failing which the amount paid will be refunded along with 12% per annum interest. He further states that the appeal has no merit and should be dismissed.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2, and have examined the material on record. Firstly, it is seen that there is a delay of 140 days in filing the present appeal. An application for condonation of delay of 125 days has been filed by the appellant. The reason for the delay has been due to the negligence on the part of the counsel. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent states that it is the easiest way to seek condonation of delay. However, no proof has been filed by the appellant.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has observed that Special limitation periods are prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. The order reads as under:

It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras".

In R B Ramlingam vs R B Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed:

"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."

Both the above cases are fully applicable in the present matter, clearly, negligence, deliberate inaction are imputed to the appellant in the present matter. There is no justification for condonation of delay, accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

Even going by merit also, it is seen that the State Commission has given both the options to the appellant, that the appellant can hand over the possession and get the sale deed executed within a period of sixty days or can refund the amount deposited by the respondent along with 12% per annum interest. From this consideration also, I do not find any merit in the present appeal.

Based on the above discussion, the appeal no. 755 of 2019 is dismissed on account of limitation as well as on merit.