Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/658/2018

Central Board of Secondary Education - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lokesh Singh Loha s/o Shri Kawal Singh Loha - Opp.Party(s)

Vishwas Saini

14 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 658 /2018

 

Central Board of Secondary Education (Regional Office) Todarmal Marg, Ajmer

Vs.

Lokesh Singh Loha s/o Kawal Singh Loha minor through his natural guardian and his father Kawal Singh Loha r/o 1`27 Bhagirath Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 14.9.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. M.S.Raghav counsel for appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal is filed against the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 4^th whereby the claim is

2

 

allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal is filed with delay of 241 days.

 

The contention of the appellant in delay application is that the delay is not intentional and it is bonafide one. Earlier Sh.Virendra Lodha senior advocate was appearing and there after Mr.M.S.Raghav advocate was engaged. On 16.12.2016 the learned Forum initiated ex-parte proceedings against the Board and appellant was not aware of the final order dated 23.11.2017. He could know about the order only when the complainant approached the Board on 30.4.2018 hence, the delay be condoned.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

 

The bare perusal of the application goes to show that the appellants are guilty of inaction and casual approach. Admittedly the proceedings were in the knowledge of the appellant even the advocate of the appellant was appearing

3

 

before the Forum below inspite of this nothing has been done to vacate the ex-parte proceedings and further more the appellant has chosen not to appear before the Forum below. The appellant has not bother to find out the progress of the case and even the appellant could not know that the final order against him is passed on 23.11.2017.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that they could know about the impugned order only on 30.4.2018. Be that may be the case this appeal has been filed on 24.8.2018 with delay of four months after the knowledge of the impugned order and no reason has been assigned for the same.

 

Reliance could rightly be placed on 2018 NCJ 457 (NC) Indian Railway & ors. Vs. Ish Sharma where the National Commission has held as under:

 

“ Evidently, even after receiving the certified copy of the impugned order on 13.4.2016 the petitioners did not show any seriousness in processing the matter expeditiously to ensure that the Revision Petition was was filed expeditiously. Such casual and lackatiaisical attitude on the part of the government functionaries has

 

4

 

 

been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & ors (2012) 3 SCC 563.”

 

Further reliance could be placed on I (2018) CPJ 105 (NC) Kamlesh Shah Vs. Sukumar where the National Commission was of the opinion that when the appellant is careless and negligent and did not bother to find out the progress, delay should not be condoned looking to the special period of limitation provided for filing of the appeals.

 

The contention of the appellant is that his matter is strong on the merit but as the appeal is filed with extra ordinary delay the merits of the case could not be considered.

 

In view of the above, the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be dismissed and so also the appeal.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm