IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:  17.10.2014

FA No. 1357/13.

Proneet Biswas

H-1515, Chitranjan Park,

New Dellhi-110 0029

……Appellant

Versus

1.       M/s Air 7 seas

          Transport Logistics, INC

          2825 Houret Ct.

          Milpitas, CA 95035

          U S A

          Through : Rakesh Sharma

2.       M/s Track Cargo

          T-5, Plot No. 3, Third Floor,

          Manish Twin Plaza-II, Sector 22,

          Dwarka, New Delhi

          Through : Sanjeev

…Respondents

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member, N P Kaushik Member (Judicial)

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the      judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

Cases Referred

1. Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011)CPJ 63 (SC). (Relied)
2. Balawant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Ors., V(2010)SLT 790=III (2010) CLT 201(SC). (Relied)
3. Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361. (Relied)
4. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kailash Devi & Ors., AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45. (Relied)
5. R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I(2009)CLT 188 (SC)=I (2009) SLT 701. (Relied)

- 2 –

N P Kaushik Member (Judicial)

1. This order shall disposed of an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.  There is a delay of 783 days in filing the appeal.
2. In brief the applicant/appellant has disclosed in his application that his complaint was dismissed in default on 1.11.11 by the District Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi.  On that day the Counsel for the complainant could not appear.  Counsel had gone to his native place to attend upon his ailing father in the last week of August, 2011.  He stayed there uptil Dec., 2014.  Counsel for the complainant came to know of the aforesaid order relating to the dismissal of the complaint only on 6.5.2013 when he and the Counsel for the OP had appeared in the Hon’ble High Court in WP (Civil) 4087.  Contention of the complainant/appellant is that he would suffer ‘irreparable loss’ and ‘injury’ in case he is not allowed to prosecute his complaint.
3. In brief the complainant has disclosed that the OPs are the shippers to discharge used households goods and personal effects, mainly clothes, physiotherapy equipments and Books etc. to India.  The dispute relates to an alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  A prayer for the refund of the amount of charges paid for door to door delivery of Rs.1,15,000/- is made.  Besides this, compensation and litigations charges are also be prayed for.
4. The appellant was required to explain the delay of 783 in filing the appeal on day to day basis.  He has simply disclosed that his counsel had gone to his native place in August, 2011 from where he returned in Dec., 2011.  Was it not the duty of the counsel to enquire about the status of the case after his return from his native place.  The appellant himself was not diligent in that he did not enquire from his counsel the status of his case.  The plea that the counsel for the complainant and the counsel for the OP met in High Court of Delhi after a period of two years is only an alibi.  In the case of (i) R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I(2009)CLlT188(SC)=I(2009)SLT701=2009(2)Scale 108, the court held as under:
5.  

(ii) Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kailash Devi & Ors., AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, the court laid down as under:

1. In view of the law discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to explain the delay of 783 days in filing the present appeal. Application is accordingly dismissed.  Present appeal being time bared is also dismissed.
2. File be sent to record room.