HARISH KATHURIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dtd. 27/1/2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, ( 'SCDRC ', for short), New Delhi in Execution Petition No.39/2018.

(2.) The brief history of the case, may be usefully adverted to at this juncture. The respondent No.2/Sh. Prashant Somani had filed a complaint in the year 2015 against M/s Harsha Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. ( 'HBPL ', for short) and its Director, namely, the petitioner, seeking refund of an amount of Rs.18,50,000.00. This amount had been deposited by the complainant/respondent No.2 with the petitioner in March, 2012 for purchase of a commercial premises in a building owned by HBPL. In the complaint, HBPL was accused of unfair trade practice, as it had not given the possession of the property in time, while admitting that, within six months, it was the complainant/respondent No.2 who had himself sought refund and cancellation of the allotment.

(3.) During the pendency of the complaint before the SCDRC, HBPL entered a belated appearance and the right to file the written statement was closed. The parties were referred to mediation, but the complainant/respondent No.2 apparently did not participate in the proceedings. According to the petitioner, though an opportunity to file the written statement was sought, the SCDRC did not grant such an opportunity and allowed the complaint of the complainant/respondent No.2, directing the petitioner and his Company to refund the entire amount of Rs.18,50,000.00 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant/respondent No.2, awarding a further sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 towards mental agony, pain and harassment. This order was passed on 23/3/2018. An appeal was preferred only in December, 2018 with a delay of around 100 days and, therefore, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( 'NCDRC ', for short) declined to condone the delay vide order dtd. 13/12/2018, consequently, dismissing the appeal.