Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th September, 2024
SIS IMPORTS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Samar Bansal
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner was arrayed as Opposite Party No.2 in the complaint filed by the complainant before the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short ‘State Commission’).
2. There were two opposite parties in such complaint i.e. M/s Gaggenau Hausgerate GMBH (Opposite Party No.1) and M/s SIS Imports (Opposite Party No.2).
3. When the aforesaid Complaint Case was pending before the learned State Commission, as far as OP No.1 - M/s Gaggenau Hausgerate GMBH was concerned, its name was dropped from the array of parties.
4. As far as OP No.2 – M/s SIS Imports is concerned, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 09.12.2019.
5. According to OP No.2, M/s BSH Household Appliance Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. had owned up the liability in question and, therefore, OP No.2 was under bonafide impression that he would take care of the complaint in question on its behalf before the learned State Commission and under such bonafide impression, it did not defend the aforesaid complaint.
6. However, fact remains that when said entity i.e. M/s BSH Household Appliance Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. moved application seeking its impleadment before the learned State Commission, such application was dismissed by the learned State Commission way back on 21.05.2019.
7. Since the aforesaid application had been dismissed on 21.05.2019, it was expected that OP No.2, who remained the sole contesting respondent in the above said complaint, would ensure that there was due representation from its side before the learned State Commission.
8. But, as noticed above, it was harboring under the impression, albeit a totally unfounded one, that said Company was taking care of its interest.
9. Be that as it may, eventually, the aforesaid complaint was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2023.
10. The petitioner herein filed an appeal against said order before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). However, the same has been dismissed solely on the ground that the appellant has not been able to show any cause justifying the delay in lodging said appeal.
11. Such order is under challenge.
12. Admittedly, the delay is of around 236 days.
13. According to petitioner herein, he was informed about the aforesaid order passed by the learned State Commission when it received an e-mail from OP No.1, who had, as noticed, already been dropped from the array of parties. Such e-mail was, purportedly, received on 18.06.2024. According to petitioner herein, the period should have started from 18.06.2024 only and, therefore, if the period is calculated from such date then the appeal was within time.
14. I have seen the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned NCDRC. Reference may be made to para 3, 4 & 5 of said order, which read as under: -
made a party but the Appellant stopped attending the hearings of the State Commission. The State Commission cannot be faulted for eventually proceeding ex parte.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the grounds mentioned in the Application for Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal do not have any sufficient cause for consideration.
5. In our opinion, the Application for Condonation of Delay does not contain any sufficient cause and, therefore, is not allowed. The Consumer Complaint needs to be disposed of in a time bound manner. Condonation of Delay without sufficient cause would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/ 2019.”
15. This Court is conscious of the limited scope of appreciation and judicial interference in such type of matters while entertaining any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
16. As per, Puri Investments Versus Young Friends and Co. and Others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283, the duty of the supervisory Court is to interdict if it finds that the findings are perverse i.e. (i) Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence, or (ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law. Reference be also made to Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.: (2001) 8 SCC 97; IDFC First Bank Limited v. Hitachi MGRM Net Limited: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4052; Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel: (2022) 4 SCC 181 and Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited: (2023) 11 SCC
594.
17. I do not find any kind of perversity in the impugned order.
18. For all purposes, the petitioner itself is to be blamed for its miseries.
19. It did not choose to defend the complaint before the learned State Commission, Delhi for its own fanciful reasons and on some self-styled assumption. Moreover, even if some cause is shown, any such party cannot assert to seek condonation, as a matter of right. In Ramlal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd.:1961 SCC OnLine SC 39, it was observed as under:-
20. The entity on which the entire blame has now been shifted by the petitioner was itself unsuccessful in its impleadment way back in the year 2019 and, thereafter, there was no one in the world to have stopped OP No.2 from participating in the aforesaid complaint before the learned State Commission.
21. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 12.09.2022 wherein it is mentioned that when the matter was taken up by the learned State Commission that day, the complainant was directed to file written synopsis within four weeks and there was also a direction that the advance copy of the same be handed over to the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
22. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no compliance of the abovesaid order and, therefore, a right has accrued in its favour and without supplying such written synopsis, the learned State Commission should not have disposed of the matter.
23. However, such argument also does not cut any ice as the above said direction does not create any kind of vested right in favour of OP No.2, who had apparently shown total disinterest in defending its matter and had been proceeded against ex-parte.
24. The respondent No.1 had filed the complaint before the learned State Commission wherein following prayers were sought:- “In the light of above facts and circumstances, the complainant humbly prays that this Hon' ble Commission may kindly be pleased to order/direct the opposite party No. 1 & 2; (a) to replace the defective appliances (as mentioned in the complaint) with new one of the same specifications; i.e. full modular Poggen Pohl kitchen as well as "Gaggenau" appliances (two Refrigerators, Coffee Maker, Oven, Cooking Range, Hood and Hob, Teppanyaki Grill, and Dishwasher) and/or to refund the entire cost of the kitchen and appliances i.e. Rs.37,50,012/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Fif'ty Thousand Twelve only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 17.02.2009 upto date; and (b) to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lacs to the complainant towards damages/compensation towards the mental pain, agony & harassment and other losses suffered by the complainant due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party;
(c) award the litigation expenses in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party;
(d) pass any such other or further order in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party, which this Hon 'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice.”
25. When the complaint was allowed, the following directions were passed by the learned State Commission:-
26. As a last ditch effort, learned counsel for the petitioner states that even if, the complainant had been held liable to refund of Rs.10,66,125/-, the learned State Commission should have, at least, directed that the articles in question, which were, presumably, defective and which were of no use to the complainant, to be returned to the petitioner herein.
27. This Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid aspect as, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, it was not diligent enough and is guilty of laches and inaction. The lackadaisical approach shown by petitioner, does not permit him to seek any kind of interference. It did not bother to defend the complaint before the learned State Commission and thus, it is now too late in the day to grant any such relief to the petitioner.
28. Consequently, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned NCDRC.
29. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 25, 2024