Haryana

StateCommission

A/725/2019

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KULDEEP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL MEHTA

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.725 of 2019

Date of Institution:20.08.2019

Date of decision:11.12.2019

 

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, SCO 145, Red Square Market, Near ICICI Bank and Hotel Family Inn. Through its Branch Manager.

…Appellant

Versus

 

Kuldeep Singh, aged about 32 years S/o Sh.Vijay Kumar, R/o VPO Madha, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hissar, Haryana.

…Respondent

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sachin Ohri, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                  

                                      O R D E R

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 As per order dated 19.11.2019 contained in letter No.2740, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.      The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was partly allowed  and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.24,150/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. O.P.No.1 is further directed for making a payment of Rs.3100/- as litigation expenses.

3.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that he had sown cotton crop in his land.  The cotton crop was insured with the opposite party No.1  for a sum of Rs.24,000/- per acre  and a total amount of Rs.1111/- was deducted by the OP No.2 on 25.07.2016 from the bank account  of the complainant. Thereafter, due to flood, the cotton crop was destroyed.   On 28.09.2016 he moved an application in the office of Agriculture Department at Fatehabad.  On 30.09.2016, the land of the complainant was inspected and loss to the tune of 35% was assessed on 30.09.2016 in 2.25 hectares of land by the loss assessing team. The complainant has suffered  a total loss of Rs.1,32,000/-. He requested the OPs to compensate him, but, O.Ps. failed to compensate.  Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

4.      Upon notice, opposite parties contested the complaint by way of filing of a separate written version.   O.P.No.1 alleged that claim of the complainant under PMFBY scheme is under process and the same will be credited in the account of the complainant.       Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1

5.      O.P.No.2 alleged that  as per notification issued by the Haryana Government, Rs.776.64/- and Rs.335.04 have been debited from the account of the complainant.  If any claim , complainant can claim only of the damage of the crop is from O.P. No.1 and not from the answering opposite party. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of  O.P.No.2.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action, concealment of true facts, abuse of process of law etc. were also raised and requested  to dismiss the complaint.

6.      An application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

7.      There was a delay of 150 days in filing the appeal and 139 days in re-filling the appeal (total delay mentioned in the file is 289 days).  Appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 150 days wherein,  it is alleged that  order dated 28.09.2018 was prepared on 12.10.2018 and  the same was received by the appellant on 24.10.2018.  On 15.11.2018, the local counsel sent the case file alongwith his legal opinion to the insurance company, which was received on 29.11.2018.  After taking opinion from Local Office Chandigarh, the matter was sent to the head office for approval.  On 12.02.2019, instructions were issued by the head office to file an appeal and on 11.03.2019, the present counsel was engaged to file an appeal.    On 22.03.2019, the present counsel sent the grounds of appeal for approval and signature of the authority.  The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

8.      There is a delay of 139 days in re-filing the appeal. Appellant has filed an application under section 151  of CPC for condonation of delay of 139 days in re-filing of the appeal wherein,  it is alleged that this Commission has raised few objections i.e. copy of the written statement on or before 24.04.2019 and counsel informed the insurance company to provide the copy of written statement .  the counsel informed that no written statement was filed in this case but evidence in the shape of affidavit was filed. Thereafter removing the objections appeal is being re-filed without any further delay. The delay in re-filing the appeal is neither intentional nor motivated and is for the reasons stated above and as such, deserves to be condoned.

9.      Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

10.    It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that order alongwith case file and legal opinion was sent by the local counsel engaged before the learned District Forum by the insurance company on 15.11.2018.  After taking opinions from Local Office at Chandigarh of the insurance company as well as their head office,  the file was sent to insurance company by the appellant’s counsel in order to sign the grounds of appeal.  Learned counsel further argued that some objections have been raised by the registry of this Commission as the written statement was not filed by the insurance company. The counsel informed that no written statement was filed in this case but evidence in the shape of affidavit was filed. Thereafter removing the objections appeal is being re-filed without any further delay.   Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal  and re-filing the appeal is not intentional and may be condoned.

11.    However, the contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay for more than 289 days ( delay in filing or re-filing the appeal), cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

12.    Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed 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.       Even there is delay of 139 days in re-filing of the appeal which is not justified at all.  Now, on merits, this Commission do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum, Fatehabad.  There is deficiency in service on the part of appellant and reasonable amount of compensation of Rs.24,150/-  alongwith interest @ 6% has been granted by the learned District Forum.

14.       Thus, it can be safely concluded that in the complaint under appeal is badly time barred.  In view of the above, the applications for condonation of delay for 289 days in filing the appeal  and re-filing the appeal are dismissed.   Moreover, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding given on merits by the learned District Forum.  No interference in the impugned order is warranted for. Appellant seems to have adopted a casual approach in prosecution of complaint as well as in filing and re-filing of the present appeal. The present appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed in limine.

15.       Amount of Rs.32,898/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal shall be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Bhagirath  against proper receipt and identification subject to decision of the appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

21st  November, 2019                                           Harnam Singh Thakur                                                                                                      Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy).