STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2014
(Against the judgment/order dated 23-10-2013 in Complaint
Case No. 119/2013 of the District Consumer Forum, Bagpat)
Branch Manager/Owner Sri Krishna Group of Institute
Singhawali Ahri, Meerut Road, Bagpat, U.P. 250606
...Appellant/Opposite Party
Vs.
- Indu Sharma, D/o Anil Sharma
R/o Mukari Tehsil Bagpat
District Bagpat
- Ritu Sharma, D/o Anil Sharma
R/o Mukari Tehsil Bagpat
District Bagpat
...Respondents/Complainants
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. R C CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
For the Appellant : None appears
For the Respondent :
Dated : 22-09-2014
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the judgment and order dated 23-10-2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bagpat in Complaint Case No. 119/2013 directing the appellant/opposite party to issue the mark-sheet and certificate, T.C./Migration and character certificate of first year examination Session 2011-12 to each complainant within a period of one month.
This appeal is put up today for admission. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant. We have perused the entire record.
The impugned order was passed on 23-10-2013, the copy of which was received by the appellant on 24-10-2013 and the appeal is filed on 03-04-2014 which is apparently time barred. Though an application for delay condonation has been filed on record accompanied with an affidavit of Sri Rohit, Secretary of the appellant stating therein that the appellant has consulted to some other Counsel and upon the assurance of the said counsel has handed over all the
:2:
relevant papers for filing appeal in the month of November, 2013. Thereafter the appellant constantly keeps in touch with the said Advocate on mobile in respect of his case who kept on conveying the appellant that his case is under preparation and the appellant would be intimated at the time of filing the appeal. It has further been submitted that the appellant has shown full faith on the assurance of the said Counsel and kept on waiting for his answer regarding filing of the appeal till the month of December, 2013 and during this period upon talk on the mobile with the said Counsel the appellant was convinced positively in respect of his case on one or the other pretext by the said Counsel. On 15-12-2013 the appellant was told by the said Counsel that the appeal has been filed in which next date is fixed for 20-02-2014 for hearing. It is further submitted that the appellant has no knowledge about the legal procedure of the case and he has shown his full faith upon the said Counsel. On 20-02-2013 upon enquiry with the said Counsel regarding the status of his case the appellant was again told that his case could not be taken up due to rush of work and 15-05-2014 has been fixed for hearing. This time the appellant has not believed on the statement of the said Counsel and started searching for some other Counsel to look into his case and in the month of March, 2014 he met with Chhotey Lal, Advocate who inspected the file from the record office when it came to know that no such appeal has been filed in this Commission. It is stated that after coming to know about this fact the appellant got surprised and he immediately contacted to his previous Counsel without making any complaint and has requested to return the relevant papers and after obtaining the same has handed over the said relevant papers to the new Counsel Mr. Chhotey Lal Chaurasia. The present Counsel without any undue delay has drafted the present appeal and being filed before this Commission. The default has been committed by the previous Counsel for the appellant in not filing the appeal in time in which the appellant has no fault. The delay in filing the appeal is not deliberate and intentional and the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice.
We are not convinced with the above facts and these facts cannot be the basis of satisfaction of this Commission that there had been sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period stipulated in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for entertaining the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days for filing the appeal from the date of the order, because the law is very much clear in this regard. In various cases decided by the Hon'ble National
:3:
Commission it is held that an application for condonation of delay should be decided keeping in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for filing the appeals and revisions in the consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the courts entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.
A party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention, is the law laid down by the Apex Court on 08-07-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006 Balwant Singh (dead) versus Jagdish Singh and others.
In Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361, it has been observed that '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 Section 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 bonafides may fall for consideration but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such fact as the court may regard as relevant'.
Recently the Apex Court in the Office of the Chief Post Master General and others versus Living Media India Ltd. and another decided on 24-02-2012 in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7595-96 of 2011 was pleased to observe:
“In our view it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they
:4:
perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters every one under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”
In the light of the law laid down in the case of Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361 if we enquire the relevant facts even in limited scope of this case, apparently the sufficient cause is not proved before us, therefore, nothing further has to be done and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The delay in filing of this appeal cannot be condoned merely stating that the default has been committed by the previous Counsel and delay is unintentional and not deliberate on the part of appellant.
Hence without making any elaborate discussion on the merit of the case of the appellant, prima facie we do not find any sufficient cause in which the delay for filing the appeal should be condoned and therefore, the appeal being time barred is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The appeal is hereby dismissed. However, the amount deposited as statutory deposit in this appeal by the appellant shall be sent to the District Consumer Forum concerned alongwith interest accrued if any to meet out the decree.
( JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH )
PRESIDENT
( R C CHAUDHARY )
MEMBER
Pnt.
,
