STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. DR. VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the company, which floated timeshares in property managed by it and one of the subscriber Dr Vinod Kumar Singhal deposited Rs. 85,500/ - with it. The resort assured could not be provided to the said subscriber, who alleging deficiency in service filed consumer complaint No. 02/2001, which was decided against the appellant -company on 09.04.2004 by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar and the appellant was directed to return Rs. 85,500/ - received from the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. and cost of the litigation. Aggrieved by the order, appeal had been filed after a delay of 309 days and an application for condonation of delay had been preferred supported by an affidavit of Sh. K.N. Kala, Assistant Law Manager (Law) in the appellant -company.

(2.) THE ground taken to show "sufficient cause" for delay is that the appellant -company came to know about the order dated 09.04.2004 for the first time on 25.02.2005 and that the delay in preferring the appeal has not been occasioned due to any act or omission of the appellant -company.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record. Respondent filed certified copy of the applications dated 20.08.2004 (Paper No. 29), dated 08.10.2004 (Paper No.30) and dated 25.11.2004 (Paper No.31), which were filed by the appellant -company before the State Commission in the connected First Appeal No. 399/2004, Dr. Vinod Kumar Singhal Vs. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd., to show that the ground taken for condonation of delay is false and that there being absence of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, the application is liable to be dismissed and the appeal not maintainable being barred by time also deserve to be dismissed. The submission is sustainable in view of the fact that on account of appearance by the appellant -company in the connected appeal and on submission of applications on 20.08.2004, 08.10.2004 and 25.11.2004 for adjournment in order to prepare objection and contest the claim in that appeal, the appellant -company was well aware of the impugned order dated 09.04.2004 by which the consumer complaint was decided on merit by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. In a situation like this, the claim made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant -company that it was made aware of the impugned order for the first time on 25.02.2005 being false clearly indicate that the appellant -company has not been able to show existence of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. In other words, the appellant has failed to prove existence of "sufficient cause" which prevented it from approaching the Commission within time.