Haryana

StateCommission

A/1179/2018

RAGHU HYUNDAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMIT - Opp.Party(s)

RAMENDER CHAUHAN

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.1179 of 2018

Date of Institution:09.10.2018

Date of decision:11.12.2019

 

Raghu Hyundai, Rohtak road Bhiwani, Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani, through its proprietor Dr.Ishwar Dass Gupta.

…Appellant

Versus

 

1. Amit S./o Shri Mohinder Singh, r/o village Charkhi, Tehsil and Distt. Charkhi Dadri.
2. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.6, Ist Floor, Metro Pillar No.81, Pusa Raod, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

…Respondents

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. M.S.Sangwan, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Sh.Punit Jain, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

MANJULA, MEMBER:

 

The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed  and opposite party No.2 is directed to  re-access the loss of the  vehicle as per the bill of the OP No.1 and the said amount of loss be paid by the OP No.2 to O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 is directed to deliver the said vehicle in question in running condition to the complainant.

2.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that complainant is registered owner of a car bearing registration No. HR-19G-6161.  Unfortunately, on 26.04.2014 vehicle met with an accident due to neel cow.  The front side of the vehicle was damaged . He informed the OPs and after inspection of the vehicle, Ops told that there was loss of approximately 2/2.50 lacs as the vehicle in question was insured with our insurance company. Vehicle was repaired in the workshop of OPs.  O.P.No.1 and 2 illegally prepared a bill of Rs.5,86,000/-  for repairing charges.  He requested the O.P. No.2 to pay the amount, but, O.Ps. clearly refused to accept his request.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      Upon notice, opposite parties contested the complaint by way of filing of a separate written version.   O.P.No.1  alleged that  complainant failed to make the payment of Rs.5,32,471/- and did not take the delivery of vehicle from the workshop of O.P.No.1.  Answering OP did not receive any intimation regarding the accident.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P.

4.       O.P. No.2 alleged that the insurance company has already passed claim for Rs.2,96,626/- as assessed by its surveyor.  The false bill was prepared by complainant himself in collusion with the O.P.No.1 to extort the money from answering O.P.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.2.

5.      An application for condonation of delay has also been filed. There was a delay of 683 days in filing the appeal.  Appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 683 days wherein,  it is alleged that case was decided on 26.10.2016 and copy of the order was issued  and received on 02.11.2016. The appellant was under impression that there was no liability imposed upon it, therefore, the order was not challenged before this Commission.  The Executing court has issued bailable warrants of the appellant, then, the counsel applied the certified copy for filing of the appeal and same was received on 05.10.2018, thereafter the present appeal is being filed before this Commission. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

6.      Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

7.      It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that case was decided on 26.10.2016 and copy of the order was issued and received on 02.11.2016. The counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant was under impression that there was no liability imposed upon it, therefore, the order was not challenged before this Commission.  When Executing court has issued bailable warrants of the appellant, then, the counsel applied the certified copy for filing of the appeal and same was received on 05.10.2018, thereafter the present appeal is being filed before this Commission. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal  is not intentional and may be condoned.

8.      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 683 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

9.      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”.

 

10.         Now, on merits, this Commission do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum, Bhiwani.    The insurance company has already passed claim for Rs.2,96,626/- as assessed by its surveyor, but, the O.Ps. demanded Rs.5,86,000/- from him.  The insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount. There is deficiency in service on the part of appellant.

11.       Thus, it can be safely concluded that in the complaint under appeal is badly time barred.  In view of the above, the applications for condonation of delay for 683 days in filing the appeal  is dismissed.   Moreover, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding given on merits by the learned District Forum.  No interference in the impugned order is warranted for. Appellant seems to have adopted a casual approach in filing of the present appeal. The present appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed.

 

11th  December, 2019          Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                         Member                                 Judicial Member                            

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)