Punjab

StateCommission

FA/127/2014

Gursewak Singh Kang - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Finance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Shakti Bhardwaj

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

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

 

M.A. No. 234 of 2014

In/and

First Appeal No.127 of 2012

 

                                                  Date of Institution: 11.02.2014.

                             Date of Decision  :11.02.2015.

 

Gursewak Singh Kang S/o Hari Singh Kang, resident of VPO Sangar Kalan Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Taran Tarn.

                    …..Appellant/complainant.

Versus

 

1.       Bharat Finance Company registered with the Registrar of           companies situated at Pritam Plaza, Near Punjab Gramin Bank,       G.T. Road, Rayia, District Amritsar through its authorized           signatories Hardial Singh and Kabal Singh

2.       Bajaj Show Room-cum- Service Centre, Anand Motor, SAD College     Road, Khadoor Sahib, Tarn Taran through its authorized       signatory/any other principal officer thereof.

                                                     ….Respondents/opposite parties

    

Appeal against order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.

 

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.   

Present:-

 

     For the appellant             :     Sh. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate

For the respondent No.1  :     Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate

For the respondent No.2 :     Ex-parte.

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

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                 

M.A. No. 234 of 2014 (Delay)

                    This order shall dispose of this application filed by the appellant/complainant seeking condonation of delay of 138 days in filing the appeal. The plea in this application is that his complaint was disposed of on 08.08.2013 by the District Fora and copy of the order was supplied to him on 27.08.2013. That he hails from poor family and he contested the case in person before the District Fora Amritsar. That he was not aware that the order of the District Forum could be challenged in appeal before the State Commission. The he came to Chandigarh on 20.01.2014 with his relative Lakhwinder Singh to seek legal advice in some other arbitration matter, wherefrom, it came to his notice that the appeal against the order could lie. He has, accordingly, prayed for condonation of delay of 138 days in filing the appeal on the above ground.

2.                Notice of this application was served upon the respondents. Respondent no.1 filed the reply to this application and contested it. It was averred in reply by respondent no.1, that the application is vague and does not disclose any concrete ground to condone the delay in this case. Dismissal of application was prayed for in reply by the respondent.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no.1 as respondent no.2 is ex-parte in this case and have also examined the record of the case. Even from the own averment of the appellant in this application for condonation of delay, he admitted that the case was disposed by the District Forum Amritsar on 08.08.2013 and copy of order was supplied to him on 27.08.2013. That he was not aware about the remedy of appeal in this case against the order of District Forum. That he came to Chandigarh on 20.01.2014 with his relative, wherefrom, he came to know about the availability of remedy of appeal. The law of limitation operates rigorously. The Consumer Protection Act is a special Act providing speedy redress to the concerned parties. A definite period of limitation has been prescribed in this special Act for filing the appeal. Excuse of law is no ground and nobody can take up this excuse that he was not aware about the existing law of the country. We find that there is inordinate delay of 138 in filing this appeal. Each days delay is required to be explained by the appellant before he could be allowed to file the belated appeal. There is no such explanation by the appellant in this regard for 138 days delay in filing the appeal. The explanation put forth by the appellant is only nebulous and is without any solid reason. We are not convinced with the argument of the appellant and the ground taken by him in seeking the condonation of delay of 138 days in filing the appeal.

4.                In view of our above discussions, we find no merit in this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

Main case :-

5.                Costs paid. Since the application for condonation of delay of the appellant has been dismissed, hence, the appeal of the appellant is barred by time and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

6.                The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February  11, 2015.                                                                                   

(MM)