Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1183/2013

POONAM SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

EMIRATES AIRLINE - Opp.Party(s)

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 11.08.2015

 

First Appeal-1183/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 07.08.2012 in complaint case No. 1507/09 from the District Forum-M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi

 

 

Poonam Sharma

Block-C-1/2929A, Near C-1Water

Tank Sushant Lok Phase-I,

Gurgaon Haryana

                                                                                        ….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Emirates Airlines

Kanchanenjunga Building

18, Bara Khamba Road,

New Delhi-110001

 

Also At:

7^th Floor DLF

Building Parliament

Street, New Delhi

                     

                                                                                     ....Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor - Member

 

 

Salma Noor, Member

            

1.             By this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 07.08.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-, VI M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in complaint case no. 1507/09 wherein the complaint of the appellant/complainant was dismissed.

2.             Along with the appeal, the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. The appellant has failed to mention the number of days for which she is seeking delay to be condoned. According to our calculation there is a delay of 420 days in filing the present appeal.

3.             We have heard, Sh. Tulsi Prasad, AR of the appellant and Sh. Charan Sachdeva, Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Dheeraj Garg, Counsel for the respondent and perused the application.

4.             Perusal of the application filed by the appellant shows that the main grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought by the appellant are as under:

        “2. That the complainant Ms. Poonam Sharma, stays in Dubai with her husband and often travels to India to meet her relatives. She suffered at the hands of the respondent Airlines and has filed the complaint before the Distt. Forum, New Delhi.

        3. That Ms. Poonam Sharma relied on her counsel for her case, never doubted his words.

        4. That the counsel for the complainant misguided and told her that the case is still going on but actually the case was decided on 7.8.2012. This fact was neither in the knowledge of Ms. Poonam Sharma nor any copy of the order dated 7/8/2012 of the Hon’ble Distt. Forum was received by her at her correspondence address.

        5. That it is only in Oct. 2012 when the complainant went to the office of her counsel and asked the counsel to show her case file that she got to know that an order is passed by Hon’ble Distt. Forum, New Delhi on 7.8.2012.

        6. That now the complainant Ms. Poonam Sharma has authorized Shri Tulsi Prasad as her authorized attorney appear, to sign, to file etc., on her behalf.

        7. That the delay of filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor delebrate but due to the reason stated above and prays for condonation of delay in filing the same”.

5.             It is to be noted that the appellant has offered a very general and vague explanation in support of her application. The submission of the appellant is that she relied and trusted her counsel for her case. Her further submission is that in October 2013 when she went to the office of her counsel and inquired about the case, she got to know that the order in the case was already passed on 07.08.2012.

6.             We are not satisfied with the reasoning given by the appellant as she has neither disclosed the name of her counsel anywhere in the application and nor stated that she was diligent in pursuing her appeal. Even the affidavit is not filed by the appellant. The affidavit filed by the appellant is of some Tulsi Prasad who is not a party in this case.

7.             It is well settled that ‘sufficient cause’ with regard to condonation of delay in each case is a question of fact.

8.           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 that 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”. 

9.           Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that;

                “There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of which is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence”.

10.              In “R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2013(1) CCC 525 (NS) : 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”.

11.            Under these circumstances, no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 420 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is not maintainable and consequently, the present appeal is barred by limitation. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

A copy of this order, as per statutory requirement, be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules.

FDR, if any, be released in favour of appellant as per rules.

                File be consigned to record room.

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Rakeeba