Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/541

LITTLE WONDERS CONVENT SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DINESH PRAJAPATI (LIMBA) - Opp.Party(s)

SH.ASEEM SHRIVASTAVA

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                          

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 24.01.2015 passed in C.C.No.457/2014 by District Forum, Indore)

 

1. LITTLE WONDERS CONVENT SCHOOL,

    SECTOR-C, SUKHLIA, M.R.10, INDORE (M.P.)

 

2. LITTLE WONDERS CONVENT SCHOOL,

    THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI DEVENDRA CHELAWAT,

     SECTOR-C, SUKHLIA, M.R.10, INDORE (M.P.)                     ….        APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

DINESH PRAJAPATI (LIMBA),

S/O LATE AMBARAM PRAJAPATI,

R/O 64, VRINDAVAN COLONY,

INDORE (M.P.).                                                                                     …RESPONDENT.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN                 :      PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL                :    MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Aseem Shrivastava, learned counsel for appellant.

            None for the respondent though service is presumed.                                                       

                                                  O R D E R

                                           (Passed On   31.07. 2017)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

           

                   This appeal is filed by the opposite party being aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore in C.C.No.457/2014 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is allowed.

2.                     Heard on IA-1, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.  As per office report this appeal is barred by two year and one month.  This appeal against the order dated 24.01.2015 has been filed on 24.03.2017.  Learned counsel for appellant reiterated the same facts as mentioned in the application that notices were never served on the appellants and therefore the appellants were remained unaware regarding institution of consumer case and left unrepresented in the case.  In March-2017 when the appellants received

-2-

notice/warrant under Execution proceedings, they came to know about the order and they ascertained the whole situation as to what had happened in their absence and thereafter applied for certified copy of the order along with initial complaint and court proceedings on 14.03.2017 and filed appeal on 24.03.2017.  He, therefore, prays for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

3.                     After hearing learned counsel for appellant we find that it is apparent from the record that notices of complaint were sent to the opposite parties/appellants by registered post AD and when the notices were not received back service was presumed on the opposite parties/appellants.  Thereafter copy of order was also sent to the opposite parties/appellants on the address on which notices were sent.  On the same address notice of execution was sent and the same has been served thus it cannot be said that they have no knowledge about the pendency of the case and they came to know about the order only when notice of execution served on them.

4.                     We are not convinced with the reasons given for the delay in filing appeal.  The appellants also failed to give detailed reasons for day to day delay of such a long period i.e. two year and one months (more than 700 days).  They also failed to give any sufficient cause for the same.   

5.                     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that “It is 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 highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained”

6.                     The National Commission also in a catena of judgments Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority Vs Tara Wati & Ors I (2017) CPJ 396 (NC), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sundent

-3-

India & Ors. 2017(1) CPR 100 (NC), M/S Sukhdev Ventures Vs Shashikant M. Chandan and Anr.  2017(1) CPR 115 (NC) and in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mahananda Gangadhar Jalkote and Anr. 2017(1) CPR 259 (NC) has held that object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if court was to entertain highly belated appeals filed against the orders of Consumer Fora.

8.                     Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and the National Commission we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of two year and one month in filing the present appeal as no sufficient grounds have been shown for condoning the inordinate delay of more than 700 days. Under these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently, the present appeal also stands dismissed.