STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 215 of 2018 |
Date of Institution | | 10.08.2018 |
Date of Decision | | 14.08.2018 |
- Authorized Officer/ Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch
Office, Sector 19-D, Address: SCF 3, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.
- Cluster Head, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Resolution, Recovery and Law
Chandigarh, SCO 60-61, 3rd Floor, Sec.17-B, Chandigarh.
…Appellants
V e r s u s
Ajay Gupta son of Shri K.L. Gupta, R/o H.No.212, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh.
...Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 01.06.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.560/2017
Argued by: Mr.Iqbal Mohammed, Advocate for the appellants.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellants/Opposite Parties have filed this appeal against order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed.
2. The appeal is barred by limitation of 57 days(as per office 26 days). To condone the delay, following reasons have been given in the application;
“That the appellant most respectfully submits that after receiving the impugned order the Chandigarh Branch has sent those order to the head office situated at Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Sector-32, Gurgaon seeking direction whether an appeal should be filed against the said order or not.
That the concerned officer of head office was not able to give its comments on time because of the heavy work load and therefore delay of 57 days has been caused in filing the present appeal.”
3.. It is stated that on receipt of certified copy of the order under challenge, it was sent to the headquarter at Gurgaon for opinion. The officer concerned, who was to give opinion, being burdened with heavy work, could not give his opinion well in time, which lead to delay in filing the appeal. The explanation given does not inspire any confidence. It is world of technology and documents/opinion can be sent from one place to another by a click of mouse. Furthermore, when the order was sent to Gurgaon for opinion, is not mentioned. With which officer, it remained pending, is also not disclosed. Explanation offered, being vague, cannot be accepted.
4. No doubt, the Courts are very lenient in condoning the delay. However, in cases, where no sufficient cause is offered, such a compassion cannot be shown in favour of a litigant. The Hon’ble Supreme court in Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, V(2010) SLT 790-III, (2010) CLT 201 (SC), observed as under:-
“The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.”
In Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had refused to condone the delay of even 13 days.
5.. In the instant case, as no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 57 days(as per office 26 days), in filing the appeal, the application, thus, stands dismissed. Consequently, appeal also fails, and the same is dismissed.
6. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
7. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
