Punjab

StateCommission

RP/19/2019

Guru Kirpa TVS - Complainant(s)

Versus

Malkit Singh - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Gopera

29 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,                               PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

 

        Misc. Application No.712 of 2019

                   In/and

  Revision Petition No.19 of 2019

                                               

Date of institution  :     22.04.2019

Date of Decision     :    29.04.2019

 

Guru Kirpa TVS, Hissar Ratia Road, Near Kainchi Chowk, Tohana, Fatehabad 125120 through its Managing Director/Proprietor Sushil Kumar, age 40, son of Shri Mahinder Singh.

 

….Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3

Versus

1. Malkit Singh, son of Pakhar Singh, resident of H.No.390, Ward No.9, Sadhanwas(213), Fatehabad, Haryana.

                                                ……..Respondent No.1 /complainant.

 

2. TVS Motor Company, Jayalakshmi Estates, V Floor, 8, Haddows Road, Chennai-600006 through its authorized person/area Manager-Service Sh.M.L.Goyal, having its local office at SCF No.10-11, 2^nd Floor, Kalgidhar Enclave, Baltana Road, Zirakpur, Distt. S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali-150603.
3. Saurabh Automobiles, near Sales Tax Barrier, Jakhal-Patran Road, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur-Authorized dealers of M/s TVS Motors Co. Ltd., through its Managing Director.

                      …..Respondents No.2&3 /Opposite Parties No.1&2

 

Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the revision petition.

 

                             IN/AND

Revision Petition against the order dated 21.11.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

 

Quorum:- 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

              Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member

 Present:-

 

          For the petitioner             :         Sh.G.S.Gopera, Advocate

 

JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL,  PRESIDENT  

          This revision alongwith miscellaneous application for condoning the delay of 60 days in filing the revision has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the petitioner/OP No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte

2.       Facts of the case are not necessary for disposal of this revision petition as the challenge is only to the order vide which OP No.3/petitioner has been proceeded against ex-parte. The complainant filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “C.P.Act”) against the opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’). Notice was sent to petitioner/OP No.3 on 04.10.2018 for 21.11.2018, through Registered post A.D. Neither Registered Cover nor Acknowledgement was received back despite lapse of more than 30 days period. It was presumed to have been served. None appeared on behalf of OP No.3. Hence, it was proceeded against ex-parte by the District Forum, Sangrur. Hence, this revision by OP No.3. Along with the revision a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 60 days was filed.

Misc. Application No.712 of 2019

Grounds for Condonation of Delay

3.                Brief facts, as averred in the application, are that the delay in filing the revision petition has occurred due to the fact that petitioner/OP No.3 was proceeded ex-parte on 21.11.2018 by the District Forum, Sangrur. Notice issued by the District Forum in the Consumer Complaint to petitioner/OP No.3 but the same was not received before the date fixed to the petitioner. Even the undelivered registered letter, containing the notice was also not received back in the Registry of District Forum. Petitioner/OP No.3 came to know regarding the ex-parte order dated 21.11.2018 only after the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No.1 of 2019, was received by the petitioner vide letter No.SCDRC/PB/JUDGMENT/19/487 dated 12.02.2019. After receiving the aforesaid order dated 31.01.2019 petitioner enquired from the Registry of District Forum and was informed that until and unless the ex-parte order dated 21.11.2018 is recalled/set aside, the applicant/petitioner cannot be permitted to file the written statement before the District Forum. The delay has occurred due to the abovesaid reasons, which is neither willful nor intentional. It was prayed that the application be accepted and the delay in filing the present revision be condoned, in the interest of justice.

Contentions of the Applicant

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/OP No.3 and have gone through the Revision Petition file carefully.

5.                Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the delay in filing the Revision Petition is neither willful nor intentional, but due to the reason narrated above. It is averred that as the delay occurred due to the circumstances mentioned above, which is not intentional delay on the part of the petitioner, rather, happened due to bonafide reasons and prayed that the same may be condoned and the Revision Petition deserves to be admitted to be decided on merits.

6                 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP No.3.

7.                The present revision has been filed, along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the huge delay of 60 days in filing the Revision. However, no cogent reasons and grounds have come forward to explain the huge delay of 60 days in filing the appeal. There is also no explanation as to what action was taken upon the case after receiving the certified copy of the order. Copy of the order dated 31.01.2019 was despatched to the petitioner on 12.02.2019. It was not disclosed in the application when the said copy was received by it and when it enquired about the case before the District Forum. Therefore, no explanation is given for the lapse of 60 days in filing the Revision, which is already delayed by much long time. Chain of sequence of events, which caused the huge delay of 60 days in filing the Revision Petition, has not been described in order to co-relate the various events which allegedly took place from time to time. The application has been filed in a casual manner, without disclosing the detailed explanation about the delay. The applicant/petitioner has adopted a careless and casual approach in filing the application as well as the Revision Petition. The law is settled that the delay can be condoned only when it has been properly explained, but the delay due to casual approach cannot be condoned, at the asking of the applicant.

8.                It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority”, 2011 (14) SCC 578 that while deciding an application for condonation of delay in the cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing the appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated petitions are to be entertained.

9.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others”, 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-

“It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence”.

10.               The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By LRs. Vs State of A.P. & Others”, 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para-26(relevant portion) observed as under:-

“Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued   to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly”.

11.               Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Oriental Arora Chemical Industries Limited Vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation”, (2010) 5 SCC-459 observed as follows:-

“We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time”.

12.               Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case reported as “Union of India & Ors. Vs Hari Singh “, 2009(4) RCR (Civil)-654, declined to condone the delay for taking the matter in casual manner. In Para-7, it was observed as follows:-

“Even otherwise, no explanation is forthcoming from 15.09.2004 to 18.01.2005 for not filing the appeal. The pleadings in application itself show that the matter was being taken in most casual manner, without bothering for the law of limitation”.

13.               In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the delay has to be explained properly and sufficient cause for causing delay must be disclosed and the delay caused on account of dilatory tactics, inaction and casual approach cannot be condoned. In the present case, as discussed above, no valid reasons or the explanations have been given for condonation of the delay of 60 days and each day’s delay is required to be explained/justified. Thus, we do not find any ground to condone the huge delay of 60 days in filing the Revision Petition.

14.               In view of our above discussion, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, being without any merit.

Main Case

15.     As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, Revision Petition also stands dismissed, being barred by time.

16.     Even otherwise, admittedly, the notice was sent to OP No.3 and presumption was raised of receiving the notice by OP No.3 after the lapse of 30 days period. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for setting aside of ex-parte order dated 21.11.2018 on the ground that notice was not received by the petitioner/OP No.3. However, it is not denied that the address of OP No.3 is incorrect. It is the same address on which the certified copy of the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by this Commission in R.P.No.1 of 2019 was sent and the same address is mentioned in the name of parties of the revision petition. Accordingly, we do not find any perversity or infirmity in the impugned order of District Forum, hence revision petition stands dismissed, being without any merit also. 

 

                             (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL)

                                                           PRESIDENT        

 

 

                                                        (KIRAN SIBAL)

                                                           MEMBER

 

April 29, 2019

Rupinder 2