Heard the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and perused the averments made in the Application, seeking Condonation of delay of 369 days in filing the Appeal.
From the averments made in the Application, we find that it is not in dispute that the certified copy of the order dated 26.04.2017, passed by the State Commission in the Complaint, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants, was received by the Counsel for the Appellant on 31.05.2017 and it was given to the representative of the Appellant on 06.06.2017. However, thereafter the Appellant did not pursue the matter promptly and only when the Complainants initiated the proceedings for execution of the order passed by the State Commission, the Appellant came forward and filed the present Appeal, with the afore-stated inordinate delay.
It is submission of the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the person to whom the certified copy was given had left the Company and, therefore, the Appeal could not be filed in time. Even if the said employee had left the Company, it is not understandable as to why the other officials of the Company did not pursue the further proceedings in the matter. They should have been more vigilant and cautious in finding the fate of the Complaint filed before the State Commission, which had been contested by them, but admittedly after passing of the impugned order, they did not take any action to challenge the impugned order before this Commission for one year.
We, therefore, do not find any good ground to condone the inordinate delay of 369 days in filing the Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation.
M/s. Landmark Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director/ Authorized Secretary, Haryana v. Abhinandan Arora & Another
M/s. Landmark Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director/ Authorized Secretary, Haryana v. Abhinandan Arora & Another
(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
First Appeal No. 1202 Of 2018 | 23-07-2018
Advocate List
- For the Appellant Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate, Simranjeet Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents --------
Bench
- MR. R.K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT
- MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
Eq Citations
- LQ/NCDRC/2018/1754
Head Note
Consumer Protection — Appeal — Limitation — Delay in filing Appeal — Condonation of — Denied — Appellant not pursuing matter promptly and filing Appeal only when Complainants initiated proceedings for execution of order passed by State Commission — Appellant's submission that person to whom certified copy was given had left Company and, therefore, Appeal could not be filed in time — Even if said employee had left Company, it is not understandable as to why other officials of Company did not pursue further proceedings in matter — Held, they should have been more vigilant and cautious in finding fate of Complaint filed before State Commission, which had been contested by them, but admittedly after passing of impugned order, they did not take any action to challenge impugned order before Commission for one year — No good ground to condone inordinate delay of 369 days in filing Appeal — Appeal dismissed on ground of limitation
