w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Concord Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Another v/s G.J. Singh & Others

    First Appeal No. 349 of 2018 in Complaint No. 169 of 2015

    Decided On, 29 November 2018

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. DINESH SINGH
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Appellants: T.S. Khaira, Advocate. For the Respondents: In Person.



Judgment Text

The dispute relates to 2011, we are in 2018.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants-builder Co. and the respondent No. 1-complainant No. 1 in person.

Perused the material on record.

2. This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 8.6.2017 of the State Commission with self-admitted delay of 226 days.

3. The State Commission vide its said Order dated 8.6.2017 had allowed the complaint:

17. In view of the discussion held above, this complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under:

(i)to handover possession of Space/Unit No. AG-10, Aerodrome, Business and Shopping Centre, Amritsar, complete in all respects within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

(ii)to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 56,11,000 with effect from August, 2012 till the date of delivery of the Space/Units, as ordered above;

(iii)to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainants; and

(iv) to pay Rs. 33,000 as litigation expenses.

18. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within two months of the receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the compensation amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

4. The appeal has been filed with admitted delay of 226 days.

The stated reasons for delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned in paras 2 to 6 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below:

2. That in the present case, the appellants received the copy of the impugned order dated 8.6.2017 (dispatched on 17.7.17) via post tentatively on 21.7.2017 at Amritsar. Thereafter the Appellants and complainants were in talks for amiable settlement of the issue outside Court however said exercise could not fructify and both the parties were unable to reach at any conclusion.

3. That thereafter the appellants in the month of September 2017 sent the impugned order and relevant document to a learned Counsel in Delhi for filing the First Appeal before thisHon’ble Commission. However due to inadvertence and bona fide oversight, the case was not prepared and filed by the learned Counsel. It will be pertinent to mention here that certain connected appeals being F.A. No. 308/2015, F.A. No. 309/2015, F.A. No. 310/2015, F.A. No. 311/2015, F.A. No. 312/2015, F.A. No. 313/2015 & F.A. No. 314/2015 concerning the same project wherein the Appellants were a party was pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. The Appellants were under the bona fide impression that the present appeal forms part of the same bunch of petition and due to pure oversight, the filing of the present appeal could not be done.

4. That it was only in the month of January 2018 that the Appellants received a notice for execution of the order dated 8.6.2017 being Execution Application No. 180/2017 for 19.2.2018. Thereafter the Appellants made frantic inquiries and it transpired that due to bona fide mistake and wrong impression, the present appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time.

5. That the grounds of challenge to the impugned order have been exhaustively dealt with by the appellants in the accompanying appeal. Therefore all the grounds and pleas taken by the appellants in the accompanying appeal may kindly be read as part of the present application as well. The said contents are not reproduced herein again by the appellants for the sake of brevity.

6. That in case the present application is not allowed and the appeal is not heard on merits, the Appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The delay in filing the appeal is bona fide in nature and the appellant has gained nothing out of the said delay.

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the present application may be allowed and the delay of 226 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay.

5. 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 226 days.

The stated reasons for delay “- - - That in the present case, the appellants received the copy of the impugned order dated 8.6.2017 (dispatched on 17.7.17) via post tentatively on 21.7.2017 at Amritsar. Thereafter the Appellants and complainants were in talks for amiable settlement of the issue outside Court however said exercise could not fructify and both the parties were unable to reach at any conclusion”; “That thereafter the appellants in the month of September 2017 sent the impugned order and relevant documents to a learned Counsel in Delhi for filing the First Appeal before this Hon’ble Commission. However due to inadvertence and bona fide oversight, the case was not prepared and filed by the learned Counsel. It will be pertinent to mention here that certain connected appeals being F.A. No. 308/2015, F.A. No. 309/2015, F.A. No. 310/2015, F.A. No. 311/2015, F.A. No. 312/2015, F.A. No. 313/2015 & F.A. No. 314/2015 concerning the same project wherein the Appellants were a party was pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. The Appellants were under the bona fide impression that the present appeal forms part of the same bunch of petitions and due to pure oversight, the filing of the present appeal could not be done”; and “That it was only in the month of January 2018 that the Appellants received a notice for execution of the order dated 8.6.2017 being Execution Application No. 180/2017 for 19.2.2018. Thereafter the Appellants made frantic inquiries and it transpired that due to bona fide mistake and wrong impression, the present appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time” point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, and are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the appeal.

6. No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible.

7. 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 ordered the appellants-builder Co. to handover possession of the subject space/unit to the respondents-complainants, along with co

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

mpensation and litigation expenses. Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the 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 appellants-builder Co. to have a bad air. 8. The application for condonation of delay being unconvincing and devoid of merit is dismissed. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed on limitation. 9. Needless to add that the State Commission shall proceed with execution as per the law. A copy of this order be sent to the State Commission by the Registry within ten days. Appeal dismissed.
O R