IN THE STATE COMMISSION

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

Date of Decision: 20.08.2015

First Appeal-146/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II Qutub Institutional Area in complaint case no. 743/2009)

IN THE MATTER OF

Senior Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Gulmohar Park Branch,

New Delhi

Being Branch of M/s Central Bank of India,

a body corporate constituted under the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and

Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980

having it’s head office at Chander Mukhi

Nariman Point, Mumbai                                                   …..Appellant

Versus

Smt. Geeta Balodi

Wife of Sh. Chander Shekhar,

Resident of Flat No. 36-A, Block-D/II/A

Janakpuri,

New Delhi-110058                     

                                                                                 ....Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor – Member

1.  Whether reporters of the local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not?

Salma Noor, Member

1.             This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OP against the order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the District Forum, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in complaint case no. 743/09 titled as Geeta Balodi Vs. Senior Manager, Central Bank of India.

2.             Along with the appeal the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. According to the appellant there is a delay of 127 days in filing the present appeal. The respondent has filed reply to the application for condonation of delay.

3.             We have heard counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay and perused the record.

4.             It is alleged by the appellant that Ld. District Forum after hearing the arguments on 08.06.2012 did not give any date for passing the order and the order was passed after 3 months on 11.09.2012. It is further alleged by the appellant that the copy of the impugned order was not sent to the appellant bank. Therefore, the appellant was not aware of passing of the impugned order. According to the appellant, the appellant bank came to know about the impugned order only in December 2012 when the respondent/complainant informed the bank. Thereafter, the bank applied for a certified copy of the order and obtained the same on 04.01.2013. Due to these reasons the appeal could not be filed within time. Another ground for condoning the delay taken by the appellant is that after filing the written statement the appellant bank was proceeded ex-parte without giving any notice though the counsel for the appellant appeared on each date.

5.             We have requisitioned the record of the District Forum. The order sheet of the District Forum dated 01.06.2012 reveals that Sh. Jitender Sharma, Ld. counsel for the appellant/OP was present at the time of arguments before the District Forum. Hence, it can’t be said that the appellant/OP was not aware that the case had been for order. It was the duty of the appellant to find out about the fate of the complaint case and file appeal within time. It is clear that the appellant took the matter in a very casual manner and filed this appeal after the delay of 127 days. We do not find any reasonable explanation for inordinate delay of 127 days in filing the present appeal. In such circumstances, the application is liable to be dismissed in the light of following judgments of Apex Court.

6.             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”. 

7.                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”.

8.             Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condoning inordinate delay of 127 days. In such circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. As the application for condonation of delay is dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.

9.             Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as barred by limitation at the admission stage itself.

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

                File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

(Salma Noor)                                                                                              Member

Rakeeba