Haryana

StateCommission

A/764/2022

NEHA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAZON - Opp.Party(s)

ANUPAMA ARIGALA

21 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:14.12.2022

                Date of final hearing:21.12.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement: 24.01.2023

 

First Appeal No.764 of 2022

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Neha Gupta d/o Sh. Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, R/o House No.315, Deshraj Colony, Panipat.

.….Appellant.

Through counsel Ms. Anupama Arigala, Advocate

Versus

 

Amazon, situated at Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Millaeshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India through its Directors/Authorized Persons.

….Respondent.

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms. Anupama Arigala, counsel for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

                    The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.05.2022, whereby the complaint bearing No.148 of 2022, filed by the complainant was dismissed at preliminary stage by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (in short ‘District Commission’).

 

2.               The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that on 28.11.2018, the complainant purchased Redmi 20000 mAh LI-Polymer Power Bank (White) through opposite party (OP) for an amount of Rs.1,499/- and payment was made online. Thereafter, she received the product, but thereafter requested the OP to return the same. OP accepted her request and product was picked up on 03.12.2018. It was alleged that it was the bounden duty of OP as per the policy of net banking to initiate the refund within 3-5 days of such pickup, but OP failed to do so. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.                Learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of complainant vide its order dated 20.05.2022 at preliminary stage on the ground of delay in filing the complaint as well as on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary parties.

4.                An application for condonation of delay has also been filed alongwith the appeal.

5.                There is a delay of 151 days in filing the present appeal.  Appellant has filed an application under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 151 days wherein, it is alleged that the appellant obtained the certified copy of the complaint on 31.05.2022 and thereafter applied for being assigned a legal aid counsel with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority. She further argued that the legal aid counsel was assigned by the Haryana State Legal Services Authority failed to file the appeal in time and thereafter appellant requested the authority for change of counsel. So, in the process of handing over the documents to current counsel, delay has occurred in filing the appeal which was neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

6.                Arguments have been heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal.

7.                File perused.

8.                It is argued by Ms. Anupama Arigala, learned counsel for the appellant that she applied for being assigned a legal aid counsel with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, but the counsel so assigned failed to file the appeal in time and thereafter appellant requested the authority for change of counsel. She further argued that appellant is a student and was occupied with her exams from 13.07.2022 to 13.08.2022 and also suffered from some health issues during this time, which made it difficult for her to procure the requisite documents and giving it to her counsel for filing of the present appeal. So, in the process of handing over the documents to current counsel, delay has happened. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal was not intentional and may be condoned.

9.                However, the contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail. A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay for more than 151 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

10.              Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

 

11.                 Even on merits, this Commission do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, Panipat.  As per the facts and documents available on record, the learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

12.                 Thus, it can be safely concluded that the complaint under appeal is without merits.  In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 151 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. We also do not find any illegality or fault in the finding given by the learned District Commission on merits. Appellant seems to have adopted a casual approach in filing the present appeal as the complaint filed by her before learned District Commission was also barred by limitation as well as before this Commission also there is a delay of 151 days in filing of the present appeal. The present appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed in limine.

13.                 A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 24^th January, 2023

 

                                                                                        S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 

 

           

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 

R.K