Order No. 6 Date: 07-03-2018
Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This day is fixed for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition of the Appellant.
By such petition, it is contended by the Appellant that, on notice, it appeared before the Ld. District Forum and filed WV. Subsequently, as the authorized representative of the Appellant, who was looking after the matter and dealing with the concerned Advocate, got shifted to another department. As the new incumbent was not aware of the matter, he could not keep proper track the same. In the last week of November, 2016, this petitioner received a notice dated 22-11-2016, wherefrom it came to know that the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint case. Immediately, thereafter, the authorized representative of the petitioner engaged an Advocate to look into the matter. The concerned Ld. Advocate forwarded the online copy of impugned order to the authorized representative of the Bank, who in turn, forwarded the same to the Head Office on 02-12-2016. Thereafter, following due official process, the Appeal was filed.
Heard the Ld. Advocates of the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 in this regard and perused the material on record.
There is a delay of 209 days (excluding the statutory period of limitation) in filing this Appeal.
It is firstly argued by the petitioner/Appellant that ever since its authorized representative, who was looking after the matter before the Ld. District Forum, got transferred to another department, his successor, due to his ignorance, could not keep track of the developments from time to time.
Admittedly, the petitioner/Appellant roped in the services of a Lawyer to represent the Bank before the Ld. District Forum, who filed WV subsequently. Even if it is assumed that the alleged transfer (of which no credible proof furnished though) created a temporary vacuum, it is most unlikely that the concerned Ld. Advocate did not hammer the successor of the aforesaid authorized representative of the Appellant to defend Appellant’s case before the Ld. District Forum. Such poor alibi on the part of the Appellant does not seem quite convincing to us.
Secondly, it is stated that the concerned representative of the Bank sent the draft Memo of Appeal to the HO on 18-01-2017. Thereafter, although the vetted approval along with petition was received on 30-01-2017, necessary approval for preparing DD was received in the 3rd week of March, 2017. This is quite inexplicable.
Not only that, although necessary approval for preparing DD was obtained in the 3rd week of March, 2017, the DD was made on 29-03-2017. Significantly, the Appellant has not offered any explanation why it took nearly a week to prepare a simple DD.
Showing ‘sufficient cause’ is a statutory requirement in the matter of condonation of delay. We afraid, the explanation of the Appellant notwithstanding, lack of due diligence on the part of the Appellant is apparent quite prominently.
This beneficial legislation put due emphasis on speedy disposal of cases. Against such backdrop, if we put our stamp of approval to intentional laches on the part of the parties concerned, we would not only do injustice to the legislative intent, but also aggravate the sufferings of hapless consumers further. Certainly, this is not desirable and we must dissuade such approach.
Lastly, it seems that although the Appellant did not remain present at the time of hearing, the Ld. District Forum took due notice of the averment of the Appellant that it articulated through its WV. In fact, on going through the impugned order, we find that the Ld. District Forum indeed passed a reasoned order in the matter.
For all these reasons, we find no viable reason to allow the petition. Consequent thereof, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
