Haryana

StateCommission

A/633/2015

UMESH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FIANZA HOME SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      633 of 2015

Date of Institution:      14.07.2015

Date of Decision :       01.12.2015

 

Umesh Gupta, 905B, Central Park II, Sector 48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122018.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

Fianza Home Solutions Private Limited, P-6, Khandsa, Behrrampur Road, Gurgaon-122004.

                             Respondent/Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               None for appellant.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of complainant is against the order dated 10th February, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon   (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      The appeal was received by post on July 14^th, 2015. It was put up before the bench on July 31^st, 2015. Notices were sent to the parties for today but none has turned up.

3.      There is a delay of 489 days in filing of the appeal. The appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay.

4.      In the grounds of appeal, it is stated by the appellant/complainant that on February 10^th, 2014, he was unable to come to the District Forum because of sad demise of his father and also that his mother was not well.

5.      There is nothing on the record to show that on which date complainant’s father expired. Even in the grounds of appeal, he has not mentioned the date of death.  He was well aware that the complaint had been dismissed in default on 10.02.2014 but still he filed appeal after more than one year and five months.

6.      It must be borne in mind that the expression “sufficient cause”, cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The time for disposal of a complaint/appeal/revision has been fixed in the Act. For such a huge  delay of more than one year and five months, the discretion is not to be used in favour of the appellant.  

7.      In Anshul Aggarwal  v.  New  Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), the prayer for condoning delay of 152 days was rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that 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.  

8.    In another authority in Office of the Chief Post Master General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., decided on 24.02.2012,  by the Apex Court, in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 7595-96 of 2011, the delay was not condoned. 

9.    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 National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. 

10.    In M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian  in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013, delay of  78 days’   was not condoned by the Apex Court.

11.    In view of the above, there is no ground to even suo moto condone the delay of 489 days in filing the appeal.

12.    Even on merits, the appellant/complainant has placed on the file Annexure P-3, copy of legal notice, got issued by him. In para No.6 he has admitted that the opposite party has replaced the bed and TV Cabinet. Thus, the grievance of the complainant has already been redressed by the respondent/opposite party.

13.    In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

 

Announced 01.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL