BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

CC NO. 1208/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

CHRYSOLITE VILLA OWNERS ASSOCIATION …COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

M/S KRISTAL PROJECTS (INDIA) & ORS. …OPPOSITE PARTIES

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS TO THE APPLICATION UNDER

SECTION 13 (2)(A) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 SEEKING
CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Complainant on the outset outrightly denies each and every averment made by

the Opposite Party 1 and 2. For the sake of brevity, the contents of the Consumer

Complaint is not being reiterated here in its entirety, and the same may be read as part

and parcel of this Reply to the Application.

2. The present complaint has been filed against the Opposite Parties for refund of the

entire consideration amount paid by the members of the Complainant Association as

set out in paragraph 25 of the Complaint, towards sale consideration and further direct

the Opposite Parties to pay compound interest of 18%p.a. on the aforesaid amounts

from the date of default in terms of the individual Agreements to Sell.

3. The Hon’ble NCDRC was pleased to issue notice to the Opposite Parties on

10.02.2020, returnable on 08.07.2020. The Opposite Parties No. 3 to 14 entered their

appearance, however Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 deliberately chose to evade

notices/summons but at the same time were actively participating in the Karnataka

High Court, wherein a petition for Anticipatory Bail had been filed by the Respondent

No. 2.__
4. The Complainants complying with the directions of this Hon’ble Court dated

05.01.2022 issued notice to the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 via publication in

newspapers such as Bangalore Mirror (English) and Prajavani (Kannada) and filed the

compliance proof before This Hon’ble Court vide application dated 31.01.2023.

5. It is further submitted as per law, the Opposite Parties ought to enter appearance

within 45 days of the said Publication notice dated 31.012023. However, the Opposite

Parties failed to enter their appearance before 17.03.2022. Thus, vide order dated

01.06.2022, this Hon’ble Court had stated that ‘despite proof of publication having

been filed, the Opposite Parties are not appearing’ and listed the matter for final

hearing on 23.11.2023.

6. On 23.11.2023, for the first time after an inexplicable delay of 251 days, the Opposite

Parties No. 1 and 2 entered their appearance before this Hon’ble Court whereby the

matter is at the stage of final arguments. Admittedly, the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2

admit that notice was received by them through Publication as recorded in order dated

23.11.2022 by this Hon’ble Court.

7. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 have conveniently entered

appearance till 23.11.2023 as the __________________.

8. It is submitted that the Complainant in compliance of the order dated 23.11.2022 of

this Hon’ble Court supplied the copy of the Complaint to the Opposite Party vide

email dated 08.12.2022. Herewith is marked and annexed a copy of the email dated

08.12.2022.

9. It is submitted that the Complainants vehemently oppose their right to file reply on

behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 and fervently requests this Hon’ble Court to
 forfeit the right to file reply and not allow to be taken on record as such inadvertent

acts on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 will set back the proceedings and cause

grave prejudice to the Complainants.

10. The Opposite Party has falsely submitted that 13.12.2022 is the date of service of

Complaint 1208/2019 whereas the Complainant vide email id

vkspartners3@gmail.com had supplied the same on 08.12.2022. Thus, the statutory

period of thirty days to file/supply the reply expires on 07.01.2023 and further

extension of fifteen days ends on 22.01.2023. However, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2

have only supplied copies to the Complainant vide email dated 25.01.2023.

11. The only explanation stated by the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 for the delay is winter

vacation which by no means is accountable and practical for the procedure of filing

reply within the statutory period.

12. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 have defaulted

on multiple counts:

a. Accepting the notice of the Complaint vide Publication dated 31.01.2021, the

Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 have already breached the statutory period of

thirty days at length.

b. By entering the appearance for the first time on 23.11.2022, the Opposite

Parties have breached all statutory extensions permissible under the law.

c. From the date of Publication Notice i.e. 31.01.2022, whereby the Opposite

Parties No. 1 and 2 have admittedly accepted service have delayed by 251

days to enter appearance and further 359 days to supply copy of their reply.
 d. Additionally, supplying the copy of the Complaint vide email dated

08.12.2022, the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 have still breached the statutory

limitation of thirty days that expires on 07.01.2023 by inexplicable delay of

18days by filing the reply on 25.01.2023.

13. The Complainant vehemently opposes the brazen disobedience of the Opposite Parties

No. 1 and 2 and prays for stringent action and exemplary costs against the Opposite

Parties No. 1 and 2.

14. The Application is bona-fide and in interest of justice.

PRAYER

In light of the factual circumstances, this Hon’ble Commission shall be pleased to: -

a. Forfeit the right to file Reply on behalf of the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2;

b. Disallow the Reply to be taken on record qua the inexplicable delay;

c. Reject the Application for condonation of delay with exemplary costs;

d. Any other order this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and just in interest of justice.

COMPLAINANT

REPRESENTED THROUGH COUNSEL

AADITYA VIJAYKUMAR/
LIZA M. BARUAH/
MALVI DEDIA/
VK & S Partners
Place: New Delhi B-7, Lower Ground Floor
Dated: .2023 Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048
aadityavk@gmail.com - 9717622082