STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2014
(Against the judgment/order dated 10-09-2013 in Complaint
Case No. 133/2012 of the District Consumer Forum, Bahraich)
Sheshraj Verma
S/o Ram Shankar Verma
R/o Village Nakaura, Post Sutauli
P.S. Fakarpur, Tehsil Qaiserganj
District Bahraich
...Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
- Manager
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
Annexi Hotel Krishna Palace
Faizabad
Proprietor Ankit Auto Sales 5 K.M.
Lucknow Road, Faizabad.
- Jitendra Jain
Field Manager
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
Annexi Hotel Krishna Palace
Faizabad
Proprietor Ankit Auto Sales 5 K.M.
Lucknow Road, Faizabad.
- Manager
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
Near Oriental Bank of Commerce
Opposite K. B. Petroleum, Bahraich
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. J N SINGH, MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. A K BOSE, MEMBER
For the Appellant : None appears
For the Respondent : Sri Gopalji Srivastava, Advocate.
Dated : 07-11-2014
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the judgment and order dated 10-09-2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bahraich in Complaint Case No. 133/2012 (Sheshraj Verma V/s Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited and others) thereby
:2:
dismissing the complaint of the appellant.
This appeal is put up today for admission. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Sri Gopalji Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents is present. We have heard learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the entire record.
The impugned order was passed on 10-09-2013, the copy of which was received by the appellant on 10-09-2013 and the appeal is filed on 14-03-2014 which is apparently time barred. Though an application for delay condonation has been filed on record accompanied with an affidavit of Sri Sheshraj Verma the appellant stating therein that the complaint filed by the appellant was rejected by the District Consumer Forum, Bahraich on 10-09-2013 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is further stated that the appellant was advised by his Counsel to approach before the District Consumer Forum, Faizabad to decide the matter against the opposite parties. Thereafter the appellant moved a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Faizabad against the respondent no. 1 and 2 bearing Misc. Case No. 310/2013. The District Consumer Forum, Faizabad passed the order dated 28-10-2013 and rejected the complaint on the ground of maintainability that the matter has already been decided by District Consumer Forum, Barhari on merit. It has further been stated that the Counsel had received the order dated 28-10-2013 on 19-11-2013 and the same was supplied to the appellant. After receiving copy of order dated 28-10-2013 the appellant consulted to present counsel who advised to obtain the certified copy of the order dated 10-09-2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bahraich to file the appeal before this Commission. It is further stated that the appellant then applied for certified copy of order dated 10-09-2013 through his Counsel at Bahraich which was obtained on 03-02-2014 by the Counsel at Bahraich and same was supplied to the appellant on 10-02-2014. It is stated that the appellant has no source of income and due to hardship he could not manage the sufficient amount to engage the Counsel and expenses to file the appeal and as soon as he able to manage the sufficient amount he is filing the present appeal. The delay caused in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but only due to hardship and poverty of the appellant, which is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice.
We are not convinced with the above facts and these facts cannot be the basis of satisfaction of this Commission that there had been sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period stipulated in Section 15 of the
:3:
Consumer Protection Act for entertaining the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days for filing the appeal from the date of the order, because the law is very much clear in this regard. In various cases decided by the Hon'ble National Commission it is held that an application for condonation of delay should be decided keeping in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for filing the appeals and revisions in the consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the courts entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.
A party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention, is the law laid down by the Apex Court on 08-07-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006 Balwant Singh (dead) versus Jagdish Singh and others.
In Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361, it has been observed that '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 Section 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 bonafides may fall for consideration but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such fact as the court may regard as relevant'.
Recently the Apex Court in the Office of the Chief Post Master General and others versus Living Media India Ltd. and another decided on 24-02-2012 in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7595-96 of 2011 was pleased to observe:
“In our view it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to
:4:
accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters every one under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”
In the light of the law laid down in the case of Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361 if we enquire the relevant facts even in limited scope of this case, apparently the sufficient cause is not proved before us, therefore, nothing further has to be done and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The delay in filing of this appeal cannot be condoned merely stating that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to hardship.
Hence without making any elaborate discussion on the merit of the case of the appellant, prima facie we do not find any sufficient cause in which the delay for filing the appeal should be condoned and therefore, the appeal being time barred is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The appeal is hereby dismissed.
( JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH )
PRESIDENT
( J N SINHA )
MEMBER
( A K BOSE )
MEMBER
Pnt.
