Delhi

West Delhi

CC/21/128

DIVYA MINOCHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI

 

Complaint Case No.  128/2021

 

In the matter of:-

 

	Divya Minocha R/o J-9/1, 2nd Floor, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon. …........Complainant
	Versus

1. Indian Overseas Bank

Through its Manager

A/95, Chaudhary Balbir Singh Marg,

Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar

New Delhi-110063

 

2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Directors,

Plot No. EL-94, TTC Industrial Area,

MIDC, Mahape, Navi Mumbai – 400710.               .............Opposite Party

 

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms. Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Date: 28/09/2022

Present:-None for Complainant.

Order by Ms. Richa Jindal, Member.

O R D E R

1. The complainant has filed an application for restoration of the Consumer Complaint before this Commission. By way of this application, the complainant challenged the order dated 17/12/2021 passed by this Commission on the grounds that non-appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the unavoidable circumstances due to the outbreak of corona all over India, due to which counsel for the complainant was not wiling to appear before this Commission and complainant was also suffered from fracture and was advised for three months bed rest. Hence the present restoration application be allowed and the complaint be restored to its original position.

 

2. Before going into the merit of the application, it is very relevant to point out the following discrepancy in the application filed before this Commission :

1. The complainant failed to mention under which provision of Law has,this application been filed.
2. Present application has been filed without any accompanying affidavit.
3. Application was without condonation of delay application as admittedly Complainant has stated that  application was filed after delay of almost nine months.
4. No document pertaining to alleged treatment/bedrest placed on record.
5. Application was not signed by the complainant.
6. Neither the copy of the order has not been annexed with the application nor the crux of order was mentioned in the entire application.

3. A plain reading of the Law on restoration application itself says that an application has to be filed within thirty days of such order whereas the present application was filed on 26.08.2022 i.e. delay of almost nine months from the date of order.
4. The complainant has made an abortive attempt to justify the inordinate delay in filing the present application on account of circumstances beyond the control of the complainant after the present complaint was dismissed. The record indicates that the order was passed on 17/12/2021 and the Present application should have been filed on or before 16/01/2022.  Needless to say, the complainant has to explain each day’s delay in filing the application within the limitation. The complainant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to prove his bona fide or the circumstances which are beyond his control after the dismissal of the complaint and thus has miserably failed to justify the delay. However, it is a settled law that for condoning the delay either party must explain the day-to-day delay whereas the complainant failed to explain the inordinate delay in filing the said review application.
5. Reliance is placed on the following judgements :

 

The National Commission in the case title CPJ 509 (NC ) case tiled Richard Reja Singh Vs Ford Motor Co. Ltd. held as under:-

Sec 24 A, 2 1(a)(i) Limitation - Accrual of the cause of action-Cause of action for filing the complaint arose when the complaint came to know for the first time that airbags had collapsed and not deployed despite the impact from TATA Vehicle – Neither service of notice or response to notice gave rise to any fresh cause of action of –Provision of Sec 24 A of the Act being mandatory and rather peremptory in nature.  Complaint barred by law of limitation. IV (2010)CPJ 27(SC).

In another case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case tilted Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63(SC) held us under:-

It is also opposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such a case for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals /revision in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the Consumer Forum.                           

The National Commission yet in another case IV (2014) CPJ 507 (NC) titled PSPCL Vs  Manoj Wadhwa held as under:-

“Sec 24 A, 21 (b) Delay of 106 days –the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be erased from Sec-5 of the Limitation Act by adopting an excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act.” 

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and circumstance and law point settled by the higher courts the complainant has failed to explain the delay, therefore, the application for seeking condonation of delay under section 14 (2) of Consumer Protection Regulation, 2020 is rejected.  Thus, the application filed is heavily time-barred.

 

7. So far as thisapplication is concerned, it is very strange that the counsel for the complainant did not bother to inspect the court file before filing such a false and frivolous application completely on the basis of assumptions and surmises which is an abuse process of law.

 

8. This application is dismissed as devoid of any merit with a stern warning to the complainant that in future no pleading will be filed without going through the order/law otherwise complainant will be penalized heavily for wasting the precious time of this Commission

 

9. Hence, the present application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

 

10. Announced in open court on 28.09.2022.

 

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

 

Richa Jindal                                                 Sonica Mehrotra

(Member)                                                      (President)