Haryana

StateCommission

A/376/2016

SATISH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOYAL TRADERS - Opp.Party(s)

KAMAL MOR

26 May 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.376 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 29.04.2016

Date of Decision: 26.05.2016

 

Satish Kumar S/o Uday Singh S/o Sh.Baru Ram, R/o Village Jamni,Tehsil Safidon,Distt. Jind.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Goyal Traders Lala Lajpat Rai Chowk,Kath Mandi, charkha Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani through its proprietor/authorized person.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Kamal Mor, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

     It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased pipes from the opposite party (O.P.) on  07.06.2008 against payment of Rs.1,84,990/- and there was warranty period  of 10 years for replacement if any leakage problem occurred in the pipes.  O.P. did not replace the pipes despite leakage in the month of February 2012.

2.      O.P.-respondent filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that  neither any warranty was given at the time of the sale of the pipes to complainant nor any written quarantee on the bill for replacement of pipes.  As per bill the pipes were purchased by Uday Singh, whereas complaint is filed by Satish. There was no report about defect in the pipes.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 14.08.2015.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal after the delay of 225 days.  He has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that as being simplicitier and villager he was not aware about court procedure and particularly law of limitation.  He cannot arrange money to file appeal. It was told by someone that appeal could be filed within one year, so delay was not intentional and be condoned.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Explanation given by the appellant about delay neither is not proper nor plausible.  From the perusal of impugned order dated 14.08.2015, it is clear that he was represented by counsel before District Forum, Bhiwani and after the decision, he must have informed about filing appeal.  On the basis of such vague plea, it cannot be presumed that he was unaware about limitation.

7.      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.

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”.

8.      Even otherwise the appeal is not sound on merits. As per bill  pipes were purchased by Udey Singh, whereas the complaint has been filed by Satish.  It was told during arguments that Udey sigh died in the year 1991. If it was so then how the pipes were purchased in his name.  As per settled law, there cannot be any contract with the dead person.  The case of appellant is also not good on merits.

9.      Taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances of the case, delay application as well as appeal is hereby dismissed as time barred in limine.

May 26th, 2016          Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                 Member                                                Judicial Member                                           Addl. Bench                                       Addl.Bench               

S.K.