Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/239/2024

GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. NAVROZE KAPIL - Opp.Party(s)

NANDAN JINDAL ADV.

17 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	239 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	28.06.2024
Date of Decision	:	17.07.2024

Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust, Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab through Mr.Srinder Singh.

 ……Appellant/opposite party no.1

V e r s u s

 

1. Dr. Navroze Kapil son of Sh. Hemraj Kapil resident of BX-I 793, Street No.6, K.C. Road, Barnala, Tehsil & District Barnala

…..Respondent no.1/complainant

2. Director Medical Education & Research, Punjab Medical Education Bhawan, Sector 69, SAS Nagar (Mohali)
3. Gian Sagar Medical College & Hospital, Ram Nagar, Banur with its Head Quarter SCO 109-110, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh, through its working President-Harnam Singh.

 ….Respondents No.2 and 3

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:-              Sh.Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.

                            

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   In this appeal, the appellant (opposite party no.1) has assailed the order dated  08.01.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.130 of 2020 filed by the complainant (respondent no.1) was allowed against it alongwith respondents no.2 and 3, as under:-

“…..In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund security amount Rs.40,000/- with interest @9% P.A.from the date of filing of the present complaint till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above….”

2.           Before the District Commission it was the case of the complainant-Dr.Navroze Kapil that he took admission with opposite parties no.1 and 2, for MBBS course in the year 2011-12 by paying all necessary charges. After completing his MBBS course, he did internship from January 2016 to December 2016. He was given stipend  up to June 2016 but was not paid the same w.e.f. July 2016 to December 2016, which comes to Rs.72,000/-. Even the security deposit paid by him to the tune of Rs.15,000/- towards library security and Rs.25,000/- as hostel security (Refundable) was also not refunded to him, despite the fact that he had requested for the same, vide application dated 15.6.2019. Hence, consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission. 
3.           Since, opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to file written  statement within the prescribed period of 45 days, as such, the same was not accepted and was  ordered to be taken off the record by the District Commission, vide  order dated 28.12.2022.
4.           Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.3, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, by the District Commission, vide order dated 28.07.2020.
5.           The complainant led evidence in support of his case.
6.           The District Commission after hearing the counsel for the complainant and on going through the material available on record allowed the consumer complaint, as stated above.
7.           Hence this appeal.
8.           Alongwith this appeal, the appellant has also filed application for condonation of delay of 129 days in filing the same.
9.           The record of the District Commission was requisitioned and received by this Commission.
10.           We have heard the counsel for the appellant and have gone through the material available on the entire record, very carefully.
11.           First coming to the application for condonation of delay, it may be stated here that Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short CPA 2019) provides as under:-

“………..41. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

•  

 

12.           The term sufficient cause has the same meaning as provided under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Before deciding this case, it is significant to mention here that this Commission has to keep in mind the broad principles laid down in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, viz. ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour, and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty.
13.           In para nos.2 to 4 of the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated by the applicant/appellant as under:-

 

“……2. That the order was passed by the District Forum on 08.01.2024, however, the copy of the order has not been delivered to the address of the appellant as the address given by the complainant respondent has already been changed way back, even before filing of the complaint as the Institution is situated at Rajpura and the students have taken their studies at Rajpura only. However, only to make the jurisdiction of Chandigarh District Forum, the old address of the appellant has been given and the complainant-respondent specifically knew that the address of the appellant-opposite party has already been changed. That is why the report has come that the appellant have already left the place.

 

3. That the appellant came to know about the pronouncement of the impugned order only in the last week of April 2024 and thereafter immediately the certified copy was applied, which was received by the appellants on 20.05.2024 and accordingly the present appeal is being filed.

 

4. That the delay of 129 days in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor willful, rather it is due to above mentioned reasons..”

 

14.           The only ground taken in the application for delay in filing this appeal is that the appellant had shifted the address which had been given before the District Commission in the consumer complaint  by the  respondent no.1, even prior to the order passed by the District Forum on 08.01.2024, therefore, the appellant came to know about the pronouncement of the impugned order only in the last week of April 2024. Thereafter the appellant, immediately applied for certified copy of the order dated 08.01.2024, which was received on 20.05.2024 and accordingly the present appeal is being filed. We have considered the plea taken by the appellant but are of the view that the same is of no use for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 
15.           It may be stated here that though the appellant in its application has stated that because the appellant had shifted the address which had been given before the District Commission in the consumer complaint  by the  respondent no.1, even prior to the order passed by the District Forum on 08.01.2024, therefore, the appellant came to know about the pronouncement of the impugned order only in the last week of April 2024, yet, when we peruse the record of the District Commission, it is found that the appellant had put in appearance before the District Commission, through its Counsel namely Sh.Nandan Jindal, Advocate (Counsel in the present appeal also) on various dates i.e. 07.07.2021, 15.07.2021, 17.08.2021, 14.01.2022, 28.01.2022, 19.05.2022, 29.06.2022, 10.02.2023, 28.03.2023, 12.05.2023, 25.05.2023 and 08.08.2023. However, it is also coming out from the record that none put in appearance on behalf of the appellant  on various dates, and ultimately, the order impugned was passed by the District Commission. Thus, under these circumstances, the appellant cannot take a plea that it was not aware of the proceedings before the District Commission or that due to alleged shifting of its address, certified copy of the order impugned was not received by it. The appellant while putting appearance on the aforesaid dates, before the District Commission never intimated that its address has been allegedly changed or that it has shifted to some other premises. Even otherwise, once the appellant had itself stopped attending the proceedings before the District Commission after appearing for some dates, referred to above, and did not even prefer to know about the outcome of the main consumer complaint, now it cannot be heard to say that it was not aware of passing of the order impugned.
16.           In view of the facts narrated above, we are of the considered view that that there is no sufficient explanation on behalf of the applicant regarding filing this appeal after such a huge delay of 129 days. Besides this, it has not been explained by the applicant, as to why it failed to file the written version with the prescribed period of 45 days, before the District Commission, as a result of which, its defence was struck off, vide order dated 28.12.2022, which order has already attained finality. It appears that the appellant has tried to rack up the issues/contentions by way of filing this appeal,  which should have been taken well in time, before the District Commission by way of filing written version  within the prescribed period of 45 days, but it failed to do so, as a result of which, its defence was struck off and the belated  written reply filed by it was ordered to be taken off the record, by the District Commission.  Under above circumstances, this Commission is of the view that the applicant has been unable to make out a convincing case of having sufficient cause to justify the delay of  129 days in filing this appeal.
17.           In “Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746”; the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed inter alia –

 

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “Sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in  view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished,  the Court should not allow the  application  for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”

 

18.           The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.  37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the Hon’ble National Commission and refused to condone the delay of even 13 days. 
19.           Similarly in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.
20.           In “Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC), the Hon’ble National  Commission had observed as follows –

“12……… . we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)” has held that – “while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay,  the Court has to keep in mind that 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 the  appeals and revisions,  which are highly belated are entertained.”

 

21.           In, “Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C ) Nos. 2054- 2055 of 2022, decided on 25.02.2022”, similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed inter alia –

 

“5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once  it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application  for condonation of delay, thereafter,  the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to  condone the delay would be  giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is  guilty of delay and laches.  At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane V. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to  be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable  grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice  but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.”

 

22.           The Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Prem Prakash Goel vs. Green Carriers and Contractors (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. as reported in II (2014) CPJ 22 (NC) held that that the fragile explanation for the condonation of delay does not ring the bell. Day to day explanation not having been furnished the delay cannot be condoned.
23.           In Central Bank of India vs. Ayodha Prasad Awasthi , I (2015) CPJ 712 (NC) also, the Hon'ble National Commission held that specific periods have been prescribed for filing of appeal and revision petitions under the law to ensure that fruits of awards or decree are not unduly delayed to successful litigants. Cogent explanation is to be given in support of each request for condonation of delay. Petitioner failed to explain the delay satisfactorily so as to constitute sufficient cause. Delay was not condoned.
24.           As stated above, in the present case also, the applicant has failed to give any sufficient cause to condone the huge delay of  129 days in filing this appeal and as such, this Commission finds no justification to condone the said delay. The application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal thus stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
25.           Under these circumstances, if we still proceed further on merits of this case, it would be nothing but commission of an illegality on the part of this Commission, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002, decided 20 March, 2009,    wherein it was held once the case is barred by time and yet, the consumer Commission decides it on merit, it would be committing an illegality and, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
26.           Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
27.           Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
28.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
29.           The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this appeal, be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

17.07.2024

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

 

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 

 (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Rg