FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH

Misc. Applications No.1791 & 1792 of 2018

In/and

First Appeal No.439 of 2018

   Date of Institution: 03.08.2018

Date of Decision  : 18.09.2018

Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., (A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956), having its registered office at 1^st Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Sector – 32 Gurugram (Haryana) through its authorized signatory Ms. Arpita Duarah. 

Applicant/Appellant

                                      Versus

1. Amarpal Singh S/o Sh. Surjit Singh, R/o H.No. 522/1, MIG, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Patiala, Punjab.

…..Respondent No.1/complainant No.1

2. P G Sales, 3266/1, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala-147001.  Through its Director/proprietor Mr. Pritpal Singh. 
3. PNK Services, C/o Aggrwal & Company, Inside Sheranwala Gate, Patiala – 147001.  Through its Director/Service Centre Head Mr. Kulbhushan Chabra & Mr. Virendra Yadav).

..…Respondents No.2&3/Opposite party No.2&3

Appeal against order dated 09.04.2018 of District Consumer Dispures Redressal Forum Patiala.

Application for condonation of delay of 83 days in filing the appeal.

Quorum:-

           Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

           Smt. Kiran Sibal, Member 

Present:-

          For the appellant                :        Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL  MEMBER :-

M.A. No. 1791 of 2018 (Delay)

          This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant seeking condonation of delay of 83 days in filing the appeal, as the appeal is barred by 83 days delay.  Applicant stated in this application that the order under challenge in this appeal was passed on 09.04.2018 by District Forum and certified copy of the order was not received by appellant.  Appellant received notice in Execution Petition No.47 of 28.05.2018 for appearance on 26.07.2018.  The appellant asked his counsel at Patiala to obtain certified copy of order and to appear in execution petition as well.  The concerned counsel applied for certified copy of the order of District Forum and the same was received from District Forum on 25.07.2018.  On verification by the counsel of the certified copy of the order, it was found to have been sent on 12.04.2018 through registered post on Carrier Midea India Private Limited, Carrier Aircon Limited, Village Narsingpur, Delhi-Japiur Highway, Gurgaon, Haryana (Manufacturer of Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, whereas, the appellant is having office at Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., (A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956), having its registered office at 1^st Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Sector – 32 Gurugram (Haryana) and the certified copy of the order was sent on the former address not on the latter one.  Due to this reason, the delay of 83 days took place in filing this appeal, which is neither willful nor intentional and is due to unavoidable circumstances only. The delay of 83 days in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned in this application by the applicant/appellant. 

2.                We have heard learned counsel for appellant and also examined the record of the case.  We find that the only point projected by counsel for appellant in seeking condonation of delay in this case is that order of District Forum Patiala dated 09.04.2018 has not been received by the appellant, as the certified copy of the order was found to have been sent on 12.04.2018 through registered post on Carrier Midea India Private Limited, Carrier Aircon Limited, Village Narsingpur, Delhi-Japiur Highway, Gurgaon, Haryana (Manufacturer of Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., through its Director  and the address of the appellant, as given in the head note of the complaint is shown to be different one. 

3.                From perusal of the record, we find that the complainant gave the address in the complaint, as supplied to him at the time of sale of AC by the appellant.  How complainant could be expected to know some other address of the complainant.  OP now appellant was set ex-parte in District Forum, because it failed to appear thereat despite service, as recorded in the order of District Forum.  If appellant failed to appear despite service before District Forum, then appellant cannot be heard on the point that it was not aware of the proceedings of District Forum culminating in the order under challenge under this case.  The appellant might have changed the address in the meanwhile, but it was incumbent upon the appellant to give changed address to the Forum for sending the process.  There is delay of 83 days in filing the appeal, even the merits of the case have also been taken into account by us, whereby District Forum directed the appellant to rectify the problem in the compressor of AC free of cost and if that is not possible to replace the compressor with new one with requisite warranty.  In this view of the matter, considering the merits of the case, we are of this view that no sufficient ground is made out to condone the above referred delay. 

4.                The matter has been settled by Apex Court in "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority" reported in Consumer Protection Reporter in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted for achieving a specific object.  The object is the expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes. The very purpose of the Act will be defeated, in case, Court was to entertain highly belated petitions against the order of the Consumer Fora. Stale matters cannot be allowed to be agitated again and again.  Law of limitation operates somewhat rigorously.  We find that a specified period for filing the appeal has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act and the very purpose of this special Act would be defeated by condoning such type of stale matters.  There is no sufficient ground to condone the unexplained 83 days, which is quite inordinate delay in this case, because a legal right has already vested in the respondent of this appeal by efflux of time, which can be taken away only on establishment of sufficient circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.   There are no sufficient grounds to condone the above referred delay in our view.

5.                  We do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay of 83 days, as put in by the appellant, and the same is hereby dismissed. 

Main Appeal

6.                Since, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, hence the appeal is barred by time and is ordered to be dismissed in limine.

7.       Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules. 

                                                                                      (J.S.Klar)

                                                                         Presiding Judicial Member

                                                                                     (Kiran Sibal)

 September 18, 2018                                                         Member

DB