Haryana

StateCommission

A/877/2017

RAJNI KUMARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY SANGWAN

01 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 877 of 2017

Date of Institution: 24.07.2017

Date of Decision : 01.09.2017

 

Smt. Rajni Kumari wife of Sh. Neeraj Kumar son of Sh. Jagdish Parshad, resident of Mohalla Kharkhari, CIA Road, House no.161, Ward No.9, Narnaul, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

 

1.      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Limited, 223-225-227, 2^nd Floor, Ansal Chambers, Plot No.6, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi through Managing Director.

2.      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Limited through Branch manager, Near Hero Honda Chowk, Singhana Road, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri Rajnikant Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant.

         

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, Smt. Rajni-complainant (appellant) has challenged the order dated October 09^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was partly allowed.

2.      The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 876 days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken in paragraph No.2 of the application is as under:-

“2.     That originally the present appeal was filed with a delay of 98 days on 21.10.2015, however, the registry had raised certain objections and the file was given back to the clerk of the undersigned counsel on same day in order to remove the objections.  However, inadvertently, the case was placed in the pile of decided cases and could not be located.  After a thorough search the case file had been recovered and the same has been re-filed on 21.07.2017 and in this process a delay of 876 days has occasioned in re-filing the same.”

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances mentioned above.

4.      This Commission has considered the submission made on behalf of the complainant. The explanation for the delay caused in filing of the appeal is vague and far from being satisfactory.

5.      By now it is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly.

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2),Scale 108, has held that “We hold that 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.”

7.      In Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 it has been held as under:-

“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 right must explain every day’s delay.”

8.      In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 414 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the “sufficient cause” for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay. Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.

9.      In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications filed on frivolous grounds are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

10.    The ground taken in the application as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance. So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 876 days.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

11.    Even on merits, there is no force in the instant appeal.  The complainant got her vehicle TATA Scorpio bearing registration No.HR66-4772 financed from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited-opposite party. The complainant was defaulter in making the payment of installments.  As per statement of account, Rs.66,768/- was outstanding against her.  The opposite party refused to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant. The complainant alleged that she made the payment of Rs.82,000/- vide receipt (Annexure C-4) to the opposite party, in which Rs.70,000/- had been shown as Equated Monthly Installments and Rs.12,000/- as repo charges.  The District Forum directed the complainant to pay Rs.54,768/- (Rs.66,768/- minus Rs.12,000/-) to the opposite party and the opposite party was also directed to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant. 

12.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, limitation as well as on merits.

 

 

Announced 01.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK