^{UNIONTERRITORY,CHANDIGARH}

^1.      

^{2.     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., having its Branch Office at SCO No. 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Branch Manager.}

^{3.     Lt. Col. B.S. Sandhu (Retd), Chairman/ Managing Director (WWICS), Head Office: A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali.}

^{.…Appellants/Opposite Parties}

^{V E R S U S}

^{Kamaljit Singh son of Shri Karam Chand, resident of Village Nabipur, District & Post Office Gurdaspur.}

^{.…..Respondent/Complainant}

^BEFORE:

^{Argued by:Sh.Raman Walia, Advocate for the appellants.}

^{Sh.Navjinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent.}  

^{PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER}

^“11.   

^{[a]     To refund Rs.2,41,000/- (Rs.2,16,000/- + Rs.25,000/- as per Annexure C-4 & C-2 respectively)}   

^{[b]     To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service;} 

^{[C]     To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;}

^12.    

^{2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the Opposite Parties published a lucrative advertisement in a newspaper in the year 2008, whereby, they made known to the public at large, their plans and establishments. Fascinated by a long list of promises of providing a number of services at a considerable rate with no future hassles, the complainant got enrolled himself with the Opposite Parties for the procurement of Work Permit. After completing the requisite formalities of submitting an application form and signing the same all in good faith, on the suggestion of the Opposite Parties that the work permit for Czech Republic was best for the complainant as it was easy to procure and the same shall be made available positively within 3-4 months time, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of signing the agreement, vide receipt No. 912, dated 28.2.2008, alongwith 170 EUROs (Annexures C-1 & C-2). The complainant deposited all the requisite amounts as and when demanded by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant deposited another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as desired by the Opposite Parties vide Receipt No. 201208 dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure C-3, Colly). It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties many times to know the status of his case, but every time they promised to get the work permit soon. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties demanded another sum of Rs.2,16,000/- and the same was paid by the complainant vide Receipt No.211908, dated 29.10.2008 (Annexure C-4). It was further stated that} 

^{3.                    It was further stated that}  

^{4.                    In their joint written statement, the Opposite Parties pleaded that the complaint was barred by time. It was stated that the complainant had entered into two separate Contracts of Engagement i.e. one with the answering Opposite Party (Annexure R-1) and the second with M/s GSBC, Dubai, U.A.E. (Annexure R-2). It was further stated that}  

^{5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.}

^{6.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.} 

^{7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.}

^{8.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.} 

^{9.                    The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties submitted that} 

^{10.                  On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the District Forum was right in condoning the delay in filing the complaint as well as allowing the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld.}

^{11.                  Before going to the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to decide, as to whether, the District Forum was right in condoning the huge delay of 417 days in fling the complaint or not.}   

^“24-A.

⁽²⁾     

^{Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay”.}

^{The perusal of the record shows that the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum on 12.07.2013, whereas, the application for condonation of delay of 417 days in filing the complaint was filed on 22.07.2013 and the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant on 02.06.2010, when the Opposite Parties returned a sum of Rs.1 lac only by way of cheque.}  

^{12.                  In Ansul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) it was held 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”

^{13.                  In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it was  held as under:-}

“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.”

14.             As such, the complainant, acted in a highly irresponsible and negligent manner, and woke up from his deep slumber, after 417 days of the accrual of cause of action. The complainant did not act, with due diligence, resulting into delay of 417 days, in filing the complaint. The complainant was required to explain each day’s delay but, he miserably failed to explain the same. Complete in-action and lack of bonafides, of the complainant is writ large, on the face of record, and attributable to him, in filing the complaint,

15.             In, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that as a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only, if the complaint is filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if the same is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. The principle of law, laid down, by the Apex Court in, is equally applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 

16.             For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed being barred by time.

17.             Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.             The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

April 29, 2014                                                                      [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.]

                                                                                   sd/-

                                   [DEV RAJ]

sd/-

 ^{[PADMA PANDEY]}

^MEMBER

cmg