STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.HDFC Credit Card Division, PO Box 8654, Thiruvanmiyur, Cheenai.

2.HDFC Bank, Credit Card Division, SCF 50-51, 1^st

Through Shri Aman Gupta, Manager Legal.

…… Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

1.Harvinder Singh, son of Surinder Singh, resident of 416 Dogar Baswti, Gali No.9-L, Faridkot.

….Respondent No.1/Complainant

2.Mobile Buzz, 

....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1

BEFORE:  

Argued by:Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

2.            

3.            4.            

5.           

6.              We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

7.           He further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3/Revision-Petitioners, are not allowed toirreparable injury is likely to occasion, to them (Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3), as, in that event, they would be condemned unheard. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside, and the

8.           the absence of the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, on 20.01.2014, in the District Forum, despite deemed service, was intentional and deliberate.

9.            

10.        it is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper-technicalities. When hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same.ciple of law, laid down, was to the effect, that procedure, is, in the ultimate handmaid of justice, and not its mistress and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. The procedural Rule, therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provisions, may result in the stifling of material evidence, of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond its control. We must always remember that procedural law, is not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid, and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to the just disposal of a case, regulatory requirement should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum. The Courts and the quasi-Judicial Tribunals, have been set up, with the sole purpose of dispensing justice, and not to wreck the end result, on technicalities.

11.        

12.         

13.        

14.        

15.        

16.        

Pronounced

03.06.2014

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[ PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Rg

STATE COMMISSION

(Revision Petition No.)

Argued by:Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for the applicants/Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.

Dated the 3^rd 

ORDER

             Alongwith the Revision-Petition, an application for condonation of delay of 32 days, in filing the same, has been filed, stating therein, that thenotice sent for the service of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3/Revision-Petitioners, was never received, as a result whereof, they (Opposite Parties No.2 and 3) had been proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum, vide order dated 20.01.2014, as none-put in appearance, despite deemed service. It was further stated that, this fact came to light, through the standing Counsel of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, during the pendency of some other case, in the District Forum. It was further stated that, thereafter, on 15.04.2014, copy of the order impugned was applied for, in the District Forum. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, were also informed about the same. It was further stated that certified copy of the order impugned was received on 30.04.2014.Hence, the Revision-Petition was filed. It was further stated that the delay, aforesaid, was neither deliberate, nor unintentional. It was further stated that delay was only on account of bonafide mistake, on the part of the applicants/Revision-Petitioners, and due to the circumstances, beyond 

2.          Arguments, on the application were heard.

3.           

 (i).    The Courts generally adopt a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

 (ii).    

 (iii).    

 (iv).        

4.           N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy, there was a delay of 883 days, in filing application, for setting aside exparte decree, for which application for condonation of delay was filed, the Apex Court held as under:-

“It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.

10. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time- limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause."

The Court further observed in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 which run thus:-

"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice videShakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal KumariState of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality

13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. "

5.           Delhi High Court, while condoning 52 days delay, in filing the appeal, observed as under:-

“No doubt, originally the Apex Court in Ram Lal Vs. Rewa Coalfield AIR 1962 SC 351 had held that while seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each day`s delay in filing the appeal. The later judgments of the

6.            The main object of the Consumer Fora is to dispense substantial justice, and not to throttle the same, by making it a sacrificial goat, at the altar of hypertechnicalities. Some lapse, on the part of the litigant alone is not enough to turn down his plea and shut the door against him. The explanation furnished for delay in filing the Revision-Petition, does not smack of malafidies. When the explanation furnished for delay is bonafide, the Consumer Fora is required to adopt liberal approach, to condone the same, so as to ensure that the lis is decided, on merits, than by resorting to hypertechnicalities. In the instant case, in our considered opinion, there was no intentional and deliberate delay, in filing the Revision-Petition, by the Revision-Petitioners. 

7.           

8.           9.           

10.        

11.        the Revision-Petition has been accepted. The order impugned has been set aside. The case has been remanded back, to the District Forum, with a direction to afford one reasonable opportunity, to the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, to submit their written version, and lead evidence, by way of affidavit(s) and, thereafter, permit 

12.        

13.        

14.        Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of cost.

Sd/-