Delhi

StateCommission

A/116/2015

FREIGHT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AIRTEL & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 31.08.2017

 

First Appeal- 116/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, VII, South West, New Delhi in complaint case No. 246/13)

 

        In the Matter of:

               

                                                                         

Freight India Systems Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 14 EHTP, Sector-34, Gurgaon, Haryana Through Regional Director, Rahul Pillai S/o Mr. Chandrasekharan Pillai R/o Pocket-D/IV, 4215, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi                                                                                        Appellant   Versus       1. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-70 Through Its Chairman and Managing Director Sh. Sunil Bharti Mittal   2. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar-IV, Gurgaon- 122015, Haryana Through its Managing Director Sh. Sunil Bharti Mittal                                                  ….Respondents

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.             This is an appeal against the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 246/2013 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant was dismissed.

2.             Along with the appeal, the appellant/complainant has filed an application for condonation of delay. According to the appellant/complainant, there is a delay of 161 days in filing the present appeal.

3.             Notice of the application was issued to the respondents/OPs who strongly objected the application by filing a reply.

4.             We have heard, Sh. Pratush Mittal, Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Ramnish Khanna, counsel for the respondent.

5.             The grounds on which the appellant is seeking condonation of delay are as under:

                        “2. That the counsel of the Appellant could procure a certified copy of the order passed on 22/08/2014 by the Hon’ble District Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi on 11/02/2015 only. The Counsel of the appellant argued the matter for final disposal on 29/05/2014 and the Order was reserved. The Counsel of the Appellant was regularly following the concerned staff of the District Forum about the order passed, but the counsel was informed that file is inside for order.

                3. That the counsel of the Appellant was regularly following up about the order and later in the month of November 2014 he was informed by the concerned person that order has been passed but the same will be sent to the complainant directly. The counsel and the complainant were totally unaware that the complaint has been dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction and that the said order has been passed against the complainant.

                4. That when the counsel enquired from the complainant about the order, the complainant told that he has not received any order pertaining to the present complaint. Later on, in the month of January 2015 the Appellant/complainant informed the counsel that he has still not received any order from the District Forum. Then the counsel of the appellant again contacted the concerned authority and was told that renovation of the premises of the District Forum is in progress and refused to help to provide any information pertaining to the order passed by the District forum in the complaint.

                5. That the counsel of the complainant visited several times and contacted the staff of the District Forum after a lot of persuasion, he could only obtain the certified copy on 11/02/2015of the Order dated 22/08/2014. And now filing of the appeal is within the limitation period of 30 days as such the certified copy has been received on 11/02/2015.

                6. That the delay in getting the certified copy of the order is neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay was caused due to the fact enunciated herein above and if the delay of 161 days is not condoned, grave injustice would be caused to the innocent appellant for no fault on his part as the appellant has a very good case to succeed before this court.”

6.             In para 2 of the application, it is submitted by the appellant/complainant that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 22.08.2014 was obtained on 11.02.2015 i.e. after passing of about 5 months and 11 days. It is pertinent to mention that the Ld. District Forum had dispatched the impugned order dated 22.08.2014 on 02.09.2014 which must have reached the appellant/complainant on or before 10.09.2014. To confirm this position we also requisitioned the file of the District Forum wherein also same position is reflected. The allegation made by the appellant/complainant in para 3 above are not substantiated in any manner. In support of the averments made in para 3 & 4 reproduced above, appellant/complainant has failed to file any proof. If the appellant/complainant had not received the copy of the impugned order it could have made efforts to find out the outcome of the complaint from the District Forum. Further, stand of the appellant/complainant that in the month of November 2014, he was informed by the office of the Ld. District Forum that order has been passed and same will be sent to the appellant/complainant directly is also vague. Even the appellant/complainant is silent on the point at to why the application was moved before the District Forum for procurement of the certified copy of the impugned order so late. There is nothing as to so as to what efforts were made by appellant/complainant to get the certified copy of the impugned order at the earliest.

7.                     Thus we find no merits in the reasoning given by the appellant. The expression “Sufficient Cause” can not be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as “Sufficient Cause”. It is well settled that “sufficient cause as envisaged under section 5 of the Limitation Act is a question of fact in each case. The following authorities are relevant for the disposal of present appeal.

8.             Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2013(1) CCC 910(NS) : IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held 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 matter 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.”      

9.     In Ram Lal and Ors. v 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 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 Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on the 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 bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry 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.”

10.    In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2013(1) CCC 525 (NS) : 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”.

11.            Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down as under:

                “There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of which is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence”.

12.            Thus, gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable to the appellant. Accordingly, no sufficient cause is shown by appellant/complainant for condoning the long delay of 161 days in filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay under these circumstances is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed being barred by limitation.

13.            A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of District Forum be also sent back forthwith.

                File be consigned to record room.

            (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member