Haryana

StateCommission

A/781/2016

BHUPESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.YADAV

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :      781 of 2016

Date of Institution  :      29.08.2016

                                                Date of Decision    :    22.09.2016

  

 

Bhupesh, Advocate son of Sh. Desh Raj, resident of Village Chandwas, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited through its Work Manager, Carrier Complex, Narsinghpur Kherki Daula, Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon-122001.

Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                          

Present      :         Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Bhupesh-complainant (appellant herein) alleged that he had purchased an Air Conditioner from the opposite party.  The air conditioner did not work properly.  The complainant made several complaints to the opposite party but in vain.   Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’).

2.                On May 28^th, 2013 none appeared on behalf of the appellant-complainant and the complaint was dismissed in default.

3.                The complainant has filed the instant appeal before this Commission alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 1130 days in filing of the appeal.  In fact it is 1158 days (Three Years and Two Months) delay in filing the appeal.

4.                The ground stated in the application for condonation of delay is as under:-

“2.     That the learned District Forum decided the complaint of the appellant vide order dated May 28^th, 2013 and after deducting the period of 60 days in filing the appeal could be filed in this Hon’ble Court on or before July 27^th, 2013 since the same is being on August 29^th, 2016, therefore, a delay of 1130 days have been taken place.  That the appellant was not aware of the said order and he could not able to contact his counsel to file an appeal on time.  Therefore, delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor malafide.  So the delay in filing the 1130 days has taken place due to the aforesaid facts and the same is not intentional.”

5.                While dealing with the prayer for condonation of delay, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“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 right must explain every day’s delay.”

6.                In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

7.                In this case, the appellant has taken casual approach and have not proved to be a prudent litigant.  The ground on which the condonation of delay is sought is not cogent to condone the delay of 1158 days (Three Years and Two Months) in filing of the appeal.   Ignorance of law is not an excuse to seek condonation of delay. The ground (reproduced in paragraph No.4) is not acceptable at all.  It is vague. A valuable right which has accrued to the opposite party cannot be thrown away in a casual manner. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for condonation of delay of 1158 days (Three Years and Two Months) in filing of the appeal is made out. 

8.                Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.          Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

 

Announced 22.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK