AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 558/2013 dated 26.05.2016.
The Petitioners/Complainants through Respondents No.1 & 3, contacted Respondent No. 4 to purchase 1BHK Flat on 01.11.2010. After discussion, Respondents No.1 & 3 agreed to provide 3% discount on the basic sale price. The Respondents informed that possession of the flat would be given within 30 months from the date of booking. The Petitioners booked Flat No. 2103 in Tower-10 in the Residential Scheme of Respondent No.4. One of the Respondent's executive reached the office of Petitioner No. 2 to get the 10% basic sale price of the flat, which was paid by the him in the name of Respondent No.4 through chequefor Rs. 1,78,250/-. The whole conversation held between Petitioner No.2 and Respondent No.1 about discount, shifting of unit and period of possession etc. were verbal. Hence, in order to avoid any ambiguity at a later stage, Petitioner No.2 sent an e-mail dated 02.11.2010 to Respondent No1 which was duly replied and confirmed by him by an e-mail on the same day only. In the said letter, it was also informed that the possession of the flat will be provided within 30 months and a credit note for Rs.53,475/- as discount, on the basic sale price of the flat, will also be issued to him after clearance of the cheque for booking amount paid by the Petitioners.
After clearance of the said cheque, Petitioners waited for a few days and then contacted Respondents No.1 and 3 about the discount amount and issuance of allotment letter.There was, however, no response. Thereafter, Petitioner No.2 sent an email dated 17.11.2010 to Respondent No.1 which was replied, assuring that the needful would be done soon. In the meantime, Petitioner No.2 came to know, from one of his friend who visited the office of Respondent No.4, that possession of the flats in Lotus Zing Project is within 39 months from the date of allotment. The Petitioner, therefore, sent an e-mail to the Respondent No.4 on 24.11.2010 to gather more information, for which they replied that the possession of flats in Tower No.10 will be provided within 39 months and it will take 4-5 weeks to issue allotment letters. The Petitioners asked Respondents 1 and 3 to give the discounted money, but in vain. Hence, the Petitioners sent a Legal Notice dated 09.12.2010 and demanded Rs. 53,475/- and requested to provide 18% interest for the delay in giving the possession of the Flat. In response to the said notice, Respondents 1 and 3 asked the Petitioners to apologise. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Petitioners alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.
The Complaint was contested by Respondent No.1 and 3 in the District Forum denying any deficiency in services on their part. Both Respondents No.1 and 3 denied the fact that they assured the possession of the flat within 30 months. They further stated that the Petitioners were informed that the possession of flats in Tower 9 will be provided within 30 months and the possession in the Tower 10 will be provided within 39 months from the date of booking.
District Forum, vide order dated 20.02.2013, allowed the Complaint on the ground that correct information about the possession of the flat was not provided to the Petitioners and they were misguided by Respondents No.1 and 3. It amounts to negligence in service and unfair trade practice.District Forum directed Respondent No.1 to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards complaint expenses to the Petitioners.
Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the Respondents. The State Commission, vide order dated 26.05.2016, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioners on the ground that no one was present from the Petitioners side. The appeal of the Petitioners was dismissed due to the absence of Petitioners under Rule 8, sub-section 6 of the U.P Consumer Protection Act-1987.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission,the Petitioners preferred the present Revision Petition.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, who reiterated the arguments as already stated above.Also carefully perused the records.
There is an abnormal delay of 396 days in filing the present Revision Petition.I.A. 3516 of 2018 has been filed by the Petitioner in which it is stated that no free copy of the order dated 26.05.2016 was provided to the Petitioner. It was in the month of September 2017 that the Petitioners contacted the lawyer who did not respond. Thereafter, Petitioners contacted another lawyer who inspected the file and they learnt that the said Appeal was dismissed. The present Revision Petition was filed within time from the date of their knowledge and hence, impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
The Petitioners has also filed a short written synopsis before this Commission. Along with the short synopsis Petitioners has also filed 2 judgements, i.e., (a.) "Taipen Traders Ltd. Versus M/s Bhawani Cold Storage in Civil Appeal No. 005071-005072 of 2014"in which Supreme Court condoned the delay of 218 days on the ground that the delay is neither inordinate nor has remained unexplained. (b) "Jeevanti Devi Versus Commercial Motors in Civil Appeal No. 010120-010121 of 2014"in which Supreme Court has condoned the delay of 135 days.
On 19.03.2013, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the District Forum, Gautam Budha Nagar.The Petitioner on his admission has stated that on 01.08.2013, the State Commission passed an order that the Appellant has filed incomplete documents and provided time to complete it.On 23.05.2014 as Advocates were not present, the matter was adjourned and listed on 27.11.2014.Again on 27.11.2014, no one was present and the matter was listed on 26.05.2015.On 26.05.2016 the State Commission dismissed the Appeal under section 8 sub section 6 of the UP Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, due to the absence of the Appellant.Section 8 sub section 6 of the UP Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 reads as under:-
"On the date of hearing or any other day to which hearing may be adjourned, it shall be obligatory for the parties or their authorised agents to appear before the State Commission. If appellant or his authorised agent fails to appear on such date, the State Commission may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it on the merit of the case....."
The Petitioner has not cured the defects for nearly 3 years and the Counsel for the Petitioner has successively absented himself. It is very clear from the above that the Petitioner has pursued his case in a very casual and non-serious manner before the State Commission and the State Commission has rightly dismissed his Appeal.
Regarding the abnormal delay of 396 days in filing the present Revision Petition, the Petitioner contends that no free copy of the order dated 26.05.2016 was provided to the Petitioner.The record, however, speaks otherwise.As seen from the order of the State Commission, free copy of the order was supplied on 12.07.16.From the date of the impugned order passed on 26.05.2016, the delay in filing the present Revision Petition is 533 days.After deducting the time taken for obtaining the certified copy and the time allowed for filing the Revision Petition, there has been a delay of 396 days.
In "R. B. Ramalingam Vs. R. B Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108", the Apex Court has observed thus:-
"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"
In "Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361", it has been observed:-
"It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to entertain this Revision Petition. No sufficient ground has been shown for seeking condonation of delay of 396 days before this Commission.
14.Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for speedy redressal of consumer disputes.It follows that the delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons supported by material.Hence the present Revision Petition is dismissed.