SANJIB BHATTACHARJEE Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition questions the order passed by the SCDRC West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) dtd. 15/7/2016 whereby the appeal has been dismissed as having been filed beyond time. While dealing with the appeal, the impugned order indicates that there has been a total delay of 74 days in filing of the appeal as per the report of the Office of the State Commission.

(2.) The petitioner, who was the appellant before the State Commission, explained his conduct, including having suffered a head injury in a motorcycle accident. The period of hospitalization and nursing was also explained which was contradicted by the respondents/complainants and has been recorded in the impugned order as follows:

(3.) The State Commission thereafter has observed that each day's delay has not been explained and to the contrary the petitioner/appellant had not stated correct facts with regard to his indisposition or to substantiate the period of his stated ailment. Thus, the delay of 74 days was taken to be a huge delay and since the delay condonation application was based on falsehood, therefore, the delay condonation application was rejected and the appeal stood dismissed. The respondents/complainants had raised a dispute with regard to possession of a flat developed by the petitioner, against which a payment of Rs.4,65,000.00 is stated to have been paid. Since possession was not given in spite of this payment having been made in the year 2012, they filed a complaint before the DCDRC South 24 Parganas, Amantran Bazar, Baruipur, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) praying for possession. During the pendency of the complaint, it was found that the booked flat had been sold to a third party and consequently an amendment was sought for refund together with punitive damages, costs and compensation. The petitioner filed his written statement and refuted the allegations that a token amount had been paid by the respondents/complainants through cheque that had bounced and even otherwise the claim was not maintainable. The District Commission allowed the amendment application seeking refund and held that there was deficiency in service and accordingly awarded refund of the amount of Rs.4,65,000.00 together 12% interest and a further sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 as compensation and Rs.1,00,000.00 as punitive damages. Litigation costs were also imposed to the tune of Rs.10,000.00.