Punjab

StateCommission

A/54/2018

Cheema Medical Complex - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harkaran Singh - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Goyal

01 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,    PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   Misc.Appl.No.159 of 2018

                             In/and

                   First Appeal No.54 of 2018

 

                                                          Date of Institution   : 01.02.2018

                                                          Order Reserved on : 28.02.2018

                                                          Date of Decision     : 01.03.2018

 

Cheema Medical Complex, Phase IV near Telephone Exchange, SAS Nagar, Mohali, District SAS Nagar Mohali through its authorized signatory.

.

                                                                …..Appellant/Opposite Party no.3

         

                                      Versus

 

1.       Harkaran Singh aged about 46 years of Sh. Jagjit Singh, resident of    Village Mustfabad, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 

                                                                .Respondent no.1 /Complainant 

 

2.       The M.D India Health Care Services (TPA) Pvt. Ltd., Maxpro Info.       Park, D-38, Phase-I, Industrial Area Mohali, Punjab (160056) ,      through its authorized signatory/M.D

 

3.       The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Plot No.      149, Industrial Area, Phase I, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh (U.T), through its Manager/Chairman.

 

4.       The Kotla Massod, Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd,          Kotla Masood, Post Office Dhunda, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District         Fatehgarh Sahib through its Secretary.

 

 

                         Respondents no.2, 3 and 4/Opposite parties no.1, 2 and 4

 

                                      

First Appeal against order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib

 

Application for condonation of delay of 94 days

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                       :  Sh.G.D Goyal, Advocate

 

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

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

 

                    This order shall dispose of this application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the appeal. It is stated in this application that appellant was set exparte by District Forum and no copy of order of District Forum was received by the appellant in this case. On  receipt of the notice of execution application, the appellant applied for certified copy of the order of District Forum on 04.01.2018. The owner of the hospital was admitted in the hospital due to his brain surgery, due to this reason, above referred delay of 94 days took place in filing the appeal. The appellant has sought condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the appeal.

2.                 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also examined the record of the case.

3.                 It is evident from perusal of record of District Forum that appellant /OP no.3 in the complaint was set exparte by the District Forum on 13.10.2016. As per tracking report, as observed by District Forum, process was delivered to OP no.3 now appellant before setting it exparte in the District Forum. Now, we consider the application, as to whether any sufficient ground in seeking condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the appeal is made out or not. Certified copy of order of District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib has been considered by us. The order was pronounced on 22.09.2017 by District Forum. The certified copy of the order was issued to complainant/OPs on 09.10.2017. The appellant applied for certified copy of order on 04.01.2018. Since appellant was delivered process, as per tracking report observed by the District Forum before setting it exparte, hence the appellant cannot be heard in contending that it was not aware about the proceedings of the matter before District Forum. Undoubtedly, delay can be condoned on proof of sufficient ground only. There is delay of 94 days, which is required to be explained by the appellant. There should be sufficient ground to condone the delay established by the concerned party before it can be condoned. Herein, we find that appellant himself is negligent in not defending the proceedings before District Forum and thereafter was set exparte, after delivery of process to it. Consumer Protection Act is a special Act designed to provide speedy relief to the aggrieved persons by the legislature. Special period of limitation has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to file the appeal. Law of limitation operates implacably and if a person slumbers over the matter, then he/it cannot be allowed the indulgence of the Forum. The delay is condoned only when  there are genuine and sufficient grounds proving the circumstances, which were beyond the control of the party to file the appeal and next it depends upon the circumstances before the Forum, whether to condone it or not.

4.                We have come to this conclusion that, once process of District Forum has been delivered to it, hence there is no sufficient ground to condone the above-referred delay. The specific period of limitation has been prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which is a special Act for filing of appeal. The very purport of the Act will be defeated in case such stale matters are allowed to be condoned on such tenuous matters. Finding no merit in this application of condonation of 94 days delay, the same is hereby dismissed

Main Case :-

5.                 Since the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed by not condoning the delay, hence, the appeal is barred by time and same is hereby dismissed in limine.

6.                The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Remaining amount, if any, due shall also be paid to complainant by the appellant within 45 days from receipt of the copy of this order.

7.                Arguments in this complaint were heard on 28.02.2018 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties, as per rules.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

 

                                                                 (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER

                                                                   

 

March 1,  2018                                                               

(ravi)