FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH

Misc. Applications No.2099 & 2100 of 2018

In/and

First Appeal No.509 of 2018

   Date of Institution: 12.09.2018

Date of Decision  : 14.09.2018

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, above Harman Hotel, Kaula Park, Sangrur, Punjab.    

Applicant/Appellant

                                      Versus

Golden Earth Global Senior Secondary School, Patiala Road, Sangrur through its Executive Director, Tejinder Singh Walia. 

Appeal against order dated 11.04.2018 of District Consumer Dispures Redressal Forum Sangrur.

Application for condonation of delay of 111 days in filing the appeal.

Quorum:-

           Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

           Smt. Kiran Sibal, Member 

Present:-

          For the appellant                :        Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL  MEMBER :-

M.A. No. 2099 of 2018 (Delay)

This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant seeking condonation of delay of 111 days in filing the appeal, as the appeal is barred by 111 days delay.  Applicant stated in this application that copy of order dated 11.04.2018 was prepared on 24.04.2018 and the same was delivered to the counsel by hand, which was further delivered late to the local office of the appellant at Sangrur, who further sent the same to the Regional Office to take decision regarding filing this appeal.  Whereas, the documents were not available in the Regional office and therefore, the same were called from the original counsel.   Due to above said reasons, the delay of 111 days occurred in filing the appeal, which is not willful and is due to unavoidable circumstances. The delay of 111 days has been sought to be condoned in this application by the applicant.

2.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant on the point of condonation of delay of 111 days in filing the appeal at admission stage of the appeal and also examined the record of the case.  There is 111 days delay in filing the instant appeal in this case.  The delay is only procedural in nature of moving file from one office to another.  National Commission has examined this controversy in National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Akhtar Bano reported in IV (2013) CPJ 617 (NC), wherein it has been held that merely mentioning that file moved from one office to another office cannot constitute a sufficient ground to condone the delay.  The matter has also been settled by Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in Consumer Protection Reporter in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein it was held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted for achieving a specific object. The object is the expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes.  The very purpose of the Act will be defeated, in case, Court was to entertain highly belated petitions against the order of the Consumer Fora.  Stale matters cannot be allowed to be agitated again and again.  Law of limitation operates somewhat rigorously.  Limitation is meant to maintain poise in the society by prescribing specified period in filing the appeals or revisions.  We find that a specified period for filing the appeal has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, being a Special Act and the very purpose of this Special Act would be defeated by condoning such stale matters.  We do not find any sufficient ground to condone the delay in this appeal, because a legal right has already vested by the efflux of time in the opposite party which can be taken away only on proof of sufficient ground, which was beyond the control of the appellant.  The yardstick  of  condoning the delay on sufficient ground has not been fulfilled by the appellant in this case.    

3.                In view of the matter as held by Apex Court and National Commission in above authorities, there is no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay, because a legal right has already vested in other side with the efflux of time in this case.  Consequently, we do not find any sufficient ground in the application of condonation of delay of 111 days, as put in by the appellant, and the same is hereby dismissed. 

Main Appeal

4.                Since, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, hence the appeal is barred by time and is ordered to be dismissed in limine.

5.                Appellant/OP had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal.  This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after expiry of period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, subject to stay order, if any.

6.       Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules. 

                                                                                     (J.S.Klar)

                                                                          Presiding Judicial Member

                                                                                     (Kiran Sibal)

 September 14, 2018                                                         Member

DB