Punjab

StateCommission

A/957/2016

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kulbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Narang

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   Misc.Appl.No.2384 of 2016

                             In/and

                   First Appeal No.957 of 2016

 

                                                          Date of Institution   : 19.12.2016

                                                          Date of Decision     :  17.01.2017

 

1.       HDFC Bank, SCO 1-2-3, Improvement Trust, Chandigarh Road, Near Mini Secretariat (Main Branch), Hoshiarpur through                       its Branch  Manager.

2.       HDFC Bank, Branch Sutheri Road, Hoshiarpur through its Branch    Manager.

                                                                                                                                         …..Appellants/Opposite Parties no.1 and 2

                                               Versus

 

1.       Kulbir Singh aged 67 years son of Sh. Joginder Singh, resident of  village Sahri, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.

 

                                                                                                                                  Respondent no.1/Complainant

 

2.       Naresh Kumar Deputy Manager HDFC Bank, Branch Sutheri Road, Hoshiarpur posted at AXIS Banks operation Head, Pocket No.           6,  MC Building No. 2089, TP Scheme, The Mall, Bathinda 151 005,  Punjab.

 

                                                                                                                            …..Respondent  no.2/Opposite party no.3

         

First Appeal against order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur

 

Application for condonation of delay of 99 days

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri. J.S.Gill, Member

           Shri. H..S Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                       :  Sh.Sunil Narang, Advocate

 

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

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

 

          This order shall dispose of this application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 99 days in filing the appeal. The appellants have filed an application for condonation of delay of 99 days in filing the appeal on the ground that certified copy of the order dated 05.08.2016 was delivered to the appellants on 12.08.2016. The matter was referred to Delhi and Mumbai for obtaining legal opinion. The appellants simultaneously approached District Forum, Hoshiarpur and applied for certified copy of documents. After seeking approval from Legal Cell at Delhi, the file was handed over to clerk of the counsel on 08.12.2016 for filing the appeal. The above-referred delay took place inadvertently. The appellants sought condonation of delay of 99 days in filing the appeal.

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

3.       Affidavit of Sanjeev Jindal Branch Manager HDFC Bank has been filed on the record. This affidavit is with regard to the fact of condonation of delay. He has simply stated that he is authorized signatory of the appellant and conversant with the facts of the case. He further swore that the application of condonation of delay has been drafted under his instructions and contents are correct. He has not specifically stated that on which date, order was received of District Forum and when it was sent to Mumbai and how much time was taken there in processing the legal opinion and when it was returned to the concerned office of appellant. Undoubtedly, delay can be condoned on proof of sufficient grounds only. The limitation act has been introduced by the legislature with specific object. Stale matters without any valid reason cannot be allowed to be taken up. A legal right is vested in the other side for efflux of time provided in the statute to file the appeal. Consumer Protection Act is a special Act designed to provide speedy relief to the aggrieved persons. 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 cannot be allowed the indulgence of the Forum. The delay is condoned only when  there are genuine and sufficient cases proving the circumstances, which were beyond the control of the party to file the appeal. The counsel for the appellants relied upon law laid down in Meena, Keshav Bansal  versus Union of India and others, reported in 2014(1) CPJ 565 (NC) that condonation of delay of 2167 days was allowed. It is sufficiency of ground, which counts and not the number of days of delay. We find that citied authority is distinguishable from the fact situation of the case. The complainant/appellant is a corporate person duly accessorized by the legal experts. We are not persuaded with the ground projected by the appellant in seeking condonation of delay of 99 days in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned, where it is bonafide and where it lacks bonafide it cannot be condoned. The delay cannot be condoned merely on asking of the concerned parties. The complainant now appellant/Company is equipped with ultra modern facilities and sending of messages takes no time from one office to another, as they can be easily sent by the appellants by means of computer orientated system and online outfit. Since legal right has been vested in the respondent of this appeal after expiry of period of limitation and hence we are not convinced with the sufficiency of the ground projected by the appellants in seeking condonation of delay of 99 days. Consequently, we find no merit in the application for condonation of delay and same is hereby dismissed

Main Case :-

4.       Since the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed and as such the delay has not been condoned of alleged 99 days, hence, the appeal is barred by time and same is hereby dismissed in limine.

5.      The appellants 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 appellants within 45 days from receipt of the copy of this order. The order be communicated to the parties, as per rules.

 

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                         (J.S. GILL)

                                                                           MEMBER

 

 

                                                                   (H.S GURAM)

                                                                       MEMBER

 

January 17,  2017                                                          

(ravi)