Haryana

StateCommission

A/431/2016

PARMILA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.MEENU CHAUDHARY - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

23 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.431 of 2016

Date of Institution:16.05.2016

Date of decision:23.02.2017

 

Smt. Parmila W/o Surender Kumar, R/o  Village Nadhori, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

…Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Dr. Meenu Chaudhary, Vardan Maternity Hospital, R.C.C. 23 Opposite Civil Hospital Model Town, Fatehabad,  Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

2.      Dr. Sanjay Bishnoi, Satyam Ultrasound and X-ray Center, R.C.C. 52, Model Town, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

3.      United India Insurance Company Ltd. 42-C, 3^rd Floor, Mool Chand Commercial Complex, New Deli 110024 through its Professional Indemnity Insurance Policies bearing NO.041200/46/12/35/00001766 effective from 25.03.2013 to 24.02.2014.

…Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    None for the parties.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

            None has appeared on behalf of the parties.  It is already 3.00 P.M. The appeal relates to the year 2015.  So there is no necessity to wait any more and is going to be disposed off.

2.                  Alongwith the appeal, appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”) for condonation of delay of  176 days wherein, it is alleged that  she was under impression that limitation for filing appeal was 90 days. When she contacted present counsel she came to know that appeal has not been filed in time. The delay of 176 days is not intentional and the same be condoned.

3.          As per impugned order it is clear that the appellant was represented before the District Forum. He must have told her about limitation for filing appeal and she cannot claim ignorance qua this fact.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

4.         The inordinate delay of 176 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“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 rights must explain every days delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

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

      In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“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 S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved 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 matter 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.”

         

    Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 held as under;

“We have considered   the respective    submissions.  The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The   legislature does not prescribe 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.”       

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court 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”.

5.  Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the application for condonation of delay of 176 days is rejected. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed as time barred in limine.

 

February 23, , 2017	Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl. Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl. Bench.
S.K