Punjab

StateCommission

A/426/2015

M/s Khalsa Gymnastic Works - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chetak Sports Complex - Opp.Party(s)

Madhu Kar

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                   Misc.Appl.No.775 of 2015

                             In/and

                   First Appeal No.426 of 2015

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 20.04.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 27.10.2016

 

M/s Khalsa Gymnastic Works, 603-Phool Bagh Colony, Near Victoria Park Colony, Meerut, a Partnership Firm through its Partner Shri Jasjeet Singh.

 

                                                                   …..Appellant/Opposite party

           

                                      Versus

 

Chetak Sports Complex (South) through its Officer in Change C/o 56 APO.

 

                                                                    … Respondent/Complainant

         

First Appeal against order dated 13.06.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda

 

Application for condonation of delay of 596 days

 

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. J.S Gill, Member.

          Shri. H.S. Guram, Member

 

Present:-

          For the appellant                       :  None.

          For the respondent          : Captain Pawandeep Singh in   Person.

         

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

          J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

 

          We are called upon to determine this point whether there is sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal or not? It is very difficult for the Army Officers to attend the proceedings by leaving their vital duties in the present set up time and again. None appeared for appellant, hence we proceed to decide the application for condonation delay on the basis of its merits and record of the case. The appellant has sought condonation of delay of 596 days in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay dated 20.04.2015 is on the record. No specific ground has been set out in this application by the appellant, as to why this inordinate delay of 596 days took place in filing the appeal. The affidavit of Jasjeet Singh Partner of appellant has been produced in this case. A legal right has been vested in complainant now respondent with the lapse of time in filing the appeal. It can be taken away only on proof of sufficient ground. The inordinate delay of 596 days cannot be condoned merely at the asking of the appellant. There should be sufficient ground to condone the delay and each day's delay must be explained by the appellant in filing the late appeal. We find that there is no sufficient ground or cogent explanation for this delay by the appellant in this application, as well as, in the affidavit. We do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay of 596 days of inordinate delay and same is hereby dismissed.

Main Appeal :-

2.       As a result of our above discussion, as the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, the appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 596 days and no sufficient ground exists to condone it. Appeal is dismissed in limine being barred by time.

3.      The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the respondent of this appeal being complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount, if any, due shall also be paid to complainant by the appellant within 45 days from receipt of the copy of this order

4.       Since the order was reserved on 25.10.2016, hence it be communicated to the parties under rules.

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

 

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

         

                                                                              (J.S.GILL)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

                                                                           (H.S. GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

October 27,  2016                                                          

(ravi)