AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The dispute relates to 2013, we are in 2019.
Learned proxy counsel for the appellants - builder co. was heard. (He argued after seeking instructions). The material on record was perused. Specifically, the impugned Order dated 20.09.2016 of the State Commission and the application for condonation of delay were perused.
To begin with, the application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal was considered.
This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 20.09.2016 of the State Commission with self-admitted delay of 66 days.
The State Commission vide its said Order dated 20.09.2016 had partly allowed the complaint:
ORDER
i. The complaint is partly allowed.
ii. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 jointly & severally shall execute the sale-deed of the flat with undivided share in the land as described in detail in complaint in favour of the complainants and shall also deliver possession of the same to them at the time of execution of the sale-deed.
iii. The complainants shall bear expenses of execution and registration of the sale-deed.
iv. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 jointly & severally shall refund Rs. 1,61,900/- to the complainants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. from 15.03.2013 till realisation of the same by them.
v. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 jointly & severally shall also pay interest @ 18% p.a. over Rs. 26,93,065/- from the schedule date of delivery of possession of the flat i.e. from 28.03.2011 till the delivery of possession of the flat by them to the complainants.
vi. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 jointly & severally shall pay compensation of Rs. 2.00 Lacs for physical & mental harassment to the complainants and they shall also jointly & severally pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants.
vii. Copy of the order be supplied to both parties free of cost.
(para 22 of the State Commission's Order)
The appeal has been filed with admitted delay of 66 days. The stated reasons for delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned in paras 3 to 7 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below:
That after passing the Impugned Order on 20.09.2016 for order, the certified copy of order was issued after a month i.e. 30.11.2016.
That thereafter the Appellants collected all the relevant case paper and sent the same to the office of the Advocates at New Delhi for preparing and filing the Appeal before this Hon'ble Commission. Thereafter, certain documents were in Marathi, therefore, time was consumed in arranging all the documents from Nagpur and sending the same to New Delhi.
After receiving all the documents in the office of the Advocates in New Delhi, same were perused and the drafting of the Appeal was undertaken by the Ld. Advocates. Thereafter, the draft appeal was sent to Nagpur for vetting which was further forwarded to the main office in Lucknow for approval. Therefore, a delay was caused in filing this Appeal which is neither deliberate nor intentional on the part of the Appellants.
In the aforesaid circumstances, there has occurred a delay of 66 in preferring the present appeal against the impugned Order dated 20.09.2016, which is neither intentional nor deliberate.
That the Appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injuries in case the delay is not condoned. The Appellants have prima facie good case on merits and are likely to succeed in the present Appeal.
(paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the application for condonation of delay)
The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The normative ideal period for disposing of an appeal is 90 days (section 19A of the Act). The period of limitation to file appeal is 30 days (section 19 of the Act). This appeal has been filed with (further) admitted delay of 66 days.
The stated reasons for delay, as reproduced, verbatim, in toto, in para 5 above, point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the appeal.
No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible.
This bench however wants to also satisfy itself that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. The State Commission has but ordered the builder co. to execute the sale-deed of the subject flat in favour of the complainants and to deliver its possession to the complainants; to refund Rs. 1,61,900/- with interest (@ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization); to pay interest (@ 18% p.a. on the consideration amount of Rs. 26,93,065/-, deposited by the complainants with the builder co. from 2008 onwards, from the scheduled date of delivery of possession of the subject flat till the actual delivery of possession to the complainants); compensation (Rs. 2,00,000/-) and cost of litigation (Rs. 10,000/-). It is noted that the agreed date of completion of the project in question / subject flat was 28.03.2011; the complaint was filed with the State Commission on 15.03.2013; the decision of the State Commission was pronounced on 20.09.2016. Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the impugned Order of the State Commission on merit, this bench but does not find any reason visible to convince it that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. On the contrary, it finds the conduct of the builder co. to have a bad air.
The application for condonation of delay, being unconvincing and devoid of merit, is dismissed. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed on limitation.
Needless to add that the State Commission shall undertake execution of its Order as per the law.
A copy of this Order be sent to the State Commission by the Registry within ten days.