Delhi

StateCommission

A/491/2015

SH. GAJE SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BPTP LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                             Date of Decision: 08.09.2016

First Appeal No. 491/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 11.12.2014 passed in complaint case No. 56/2012by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

Sh. Gaje Singh

S/o Late Sh. Tuti Ram

R/o L-6072, Devender Vihar

Sector-56, Gurgaon (HR)                        ..........Appellant

 

Versus

 

BPTP Ltd.

M-11, Middle Circle

Connaught Place, New Delhi

Through its General Manager

 

Also at:

 

5 & 6 Floor, DCM Building

16, Barakhamba Road

Connaught Place, New Delhi

Through its General Manager                   .........Respondent

                                                                  

                                                                  

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       President

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       Member

 

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

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                         Yes

 

 

SALMA NOOR – MEMBER

 

 

1.     Appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum VI New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 56/2012 whereby the complaint of the complainant/appellant was dismissed.
2.     Alongwith the appeal, the complainant/appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay. Admittedly there is a delay of 9 months in filing the present appeal. The grounds on which the appellant seeks delay to be condoned are narrated in Para 2 of the application which reads as under:

“That there is an inadvertent delay in filing of the present first appeal. That the matter was listed for arguments on 11.12.2014 maintainability and the matter was argued and reserved for orders. Thereafter the counsel for the appellant was constantly checking as to the status of the case and orders. That thereafter the previous counsel for the appellant in the last week of December 2014 inquired about the order from the court, but the counsel was told by the staff that the orders would be sent to the appellant once the same are passed. That surprisingly no order was sent to the appellant once the same are passed. That surprisingly no order was sent to the appellant or their counsel. Surprisingly, in the end of April 2015 the appellant visited the Ld. District Forum and was shocked to hear that his compliant has been dismissed on 11.12.2014. The appellant immediately apprised about the matter to the counsel and the previous counsel applied for the certified copy of the order and on the 07.05.2015 the counsel for the appellant received the certified copy of the order from the said consumer forum and the same was supplied to the appellant only on 20.05.2015. That thereafter the previous counsel of the complainant suggested that the complainant should file a suit for specific performance and damages against the respondent herein, rather going for a consumer appeal, that the appellant agreed for the same. That thereafter the same was got ready by the end of May 2015 and the appellant was informed that the same would be filed after the summer vacations in the month of July 2015. That the complainant again approached his previous counsel, who again said the appellant has ample time and the case can be filed next month as the counsel of the appellant was busy in some family marriage. That thereafter again the same could not be filed in August 2015 and in the last week of September 2015 the previous counsel showed his inability to file a case for appellant and the appellant approached the present counsel. That the present counsel immediately suggested to challenge the impugned order by way of appeal as there were various defects in the said order and the same was against the procedural law and the precedents of this Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission. That immediately the present appeal was drafted and the same has been filed with an application for condonation of delay.”

 

3.     We have heard the Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Manish Chib and Sh. Ayush Gupta AR of the Respondent and perused the records.
4.     The ground taken by the appellant in its application that the copy of impugned order was not sent to the appellant does not seem to be true as on the certified copy of the impugned order which is filed alongwith the appeal shows that vide dispatch number 29172 copy of the order was sent to the parties on 16.12.2014. It is also to be noticed that the appellant himself is the complainant before the District Forum. He had to be vigilant about the fate of his complaint. It is further alleged by the appellant that his previous counsel had failed to furnish the documents to support his averments made in the application. However, the appellant/complainant has not disclosed the name of the counsel nor any evidence in support of his contention is filed. It is also admitted by the appellant/complainant that he has received a certified copy of the impugned order on 07.05.2015 and the appeal is filed on 09.10.2015. Even if we consider that he has received certified copy of the impugned order on 07.05.2015, the appeal should have been filed on or before 08.06.2015 but the appeal is filed on 09.10.2015 with a delay of 124 days.  It is also mentioned in the application that the previous counsel of the appellant/complainant had suggested that the appellant/complainant should file a suit for specific performance and damages against the respondent rather going for a consumer appeal and that the appellant agreed for the same. The same shows that the appellant/complainantpurportedly did not file the appeal in time and was trying to get remedy before Civil Court. In view of the aforesaid reason we feel that the appellant/complainant was himself negligent and was not diligent in taking proper action or to avail proper remedy. In these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of the following judgments of Hon’bel Apex Court:
5.     In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed that:

“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 the Section 5. If sufficient case is not proof 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 mater 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”.

 

6.     In R.B. Ramlingam Vs R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I(2009)  SLT 701=I(2009)  CLT 188(SC)=2009(2) Scale 108, it has been observed:

“We hold that each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basis 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”.

 

7.         Hon’ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in I(2010) CLT 333 (SC)=II (2010) SLT 205=(2005) 5 SCC 459 as under:

 

“We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Legislature does not prescribed limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the Courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time”. 

 

8.     Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC), Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)=(2010) 5 SCC 459 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”.

 

9.         As discussed above, we find that no reasonable explanation is given for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and accordingly we dismiss the same. As the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
10. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
11. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)
President

 

 

(Salma Noor)​