Haryana

StateCommission

A/926/2018

ATAM PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

                                                First appeal No.926 of 2018

Date of the Institution:27.07.2018

Date of Final Hearing:09.02.2023

Date of pronouncement: 10.03.2023

 

Atam Parkash S/o Shri Ram Sarup R/o Village Guniana Sub Tehsil Nissing, Distt. Karnal.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Axis Bank, Bastali, Sub Tehsil Nissing through Manager Distt. Karnal.

….. Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Ms. Upasana Bajaj proxy counsel for Mr.Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The present appeal No.926 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.355 of 2016, which was dismissed.

2.      There is a delay of 187 days in filing the appeal.  An appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of  187 days wherein,  it is alleged that  appellant received the copy of order on 22.12.2017.  The appellant contacted some counsel  and he came to know that the limitation for filing  appeal was 30 days. The appellant collected all necessary documents from his previous counsel before trial court and handed over the same to his newly engaged counsel and appeal was filed immediately. The delay in filing appeal was not intentional but due to reason mentioned above. Thus, delay of 187 days in filing of the present appeal be condoned.

3.      Arguments Heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional.     The counsel further argued that impugned order was passed on 18.12.2017 and copy thereof was received by the appellant on 22.12.2017.  The appellant contacted his new counsel  and he came to know that the limitation for filing  appeal was 30 days. The appellant collected all requisite documents from his previous counsel before trial court and handed over the same to his newly engaged counsel and appeal was filed immediately. Due to the above said reasons, the appeal could not be filed within limitation, so the delay may be condoned. 

5.      This argument is not available.  A period of 30 days as per the old Act has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. 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 rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

6.                  The inordinate delay of 187 days cannot be condoned in the light of 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 Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

         

7.      Taking into consideration the pleas raised by appellant in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone delay of 187 days in filing of the appeal. Hence application filed for condonation of delay  in appeal No.926 of 2018 is dismissed.  

8.      Atam Parkash-Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Commission”)  vide which the complaint was dismissed.

9.      The brief facts of the complaint are that he was owner of 55 kanal 18 marlas of land.  He availed cash credit limit from Opposite party. The complainant has cleared the amount. The complainant has demanded Rs.16184/- paid as premium under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from OP. The OP wrongly stated that complainant was not covered under the scheme.  He made application to CM window in which he stated that he obtained 25 killa of land on lease, but was not given the benefit of the scheme. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

10.    Notice issued to the opposite party.  In reply, OP alleged that complainant had availed Kisan Credit Facility of Rs.9,00,000/- by showing 7.47 acre as owned land and 25 acre being the leased land situated at village Guniana,Tehsil Nissing, Distt Karnal. The crop of the complainant was insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana and premium of Rs.16,184/- has rightly  been debited in the account of complainant Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissing the complaint.

11.    After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (In short “District Commission”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 18.12.2017.

12.    Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

13.    The arguments have been advanced by Mr.
Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms.Upasana Bajaj proxy counsel for Mr.Abhineet Taneja, learned counsel for the respondent.  With their kind assistance the entire records of the appeal has been properly perused and examined.

14.    It is not disputed that the crop of the complainant was insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana.  It is also not disputed that he has availed cash credit limit of Rs.9,00,000/- against the said land.  It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs.16184/- was deducted from his account.  Since the govt. of India has introduced Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and under this scheme it was compulsory for loanee farmers availing crop loan or having sanctioned credit limit to get insured their crops, so an amount of Rs.16184/- was rightly deducted from the account of the complainant. The complainant in his complaint stated that he owned 7.47 acres of land and 25 acres of land has been taken on lease but he was able to substantiate his contention in this regard. The learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant and the same stands endorsed as the OPs-respondents are not responsible for any kind of deficiency in service and as such, while dismissing the complaint, no illegality committed by the learned District Commission, Karnal and resultantly appeal being devoid of merits and stands dismissed on both grounds delay as well as on merits.

15.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.

16.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

17.    File be consigned to record room.                  

 

10th  March, 2023   S  C  Kaushik                                               S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)