Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.1.2009 , rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint, on the ground, that the same was barred by limitation. 2. The complainant purchased one TATA 407 vehicle from OPs through finance, for earning his livelihood. It was snatched forcibly by the musclemen of the OPs, in an illegal manner, from his possession, without any prior notice or intimation. The matter was taken up with OP No.2 who promised to return the vehicle on the duly intimated date, but to the utter shock of the complainant, his new vehicle was reduced into rubbish. A legal notice dated 10.3.2008 was received from the respondents through their Counsel, thereby raising a demand of huge amount from him . This notice was duly replied on 6.4.2008. It was stated that the OPs indulged into unfair trade practice, by forcibly snatching the vehicle, from the complainant and were also deficient, in rendering service. Ultimately, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. 3. Notice was sent to the OPs, but despite service, none appeared on their behalf, and, as such, they were proceeded against ex parte. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the Complainant, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the cause of action, accrued to the complainant in 2002, when his vehicle was snatched and the complaint having been filed in 2008, was barred by time, and dismissed the same. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed. 6. Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act,1963, for condonation of delay of 196 days, was filed. The grounds set up, in the application, for condonation of delay are, to the effect, that despite due diligence, the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period of 30 days. It was further stated that the appellant suffered a massive liver problem, which restricted his mobility, and he remained confined to bed with medication. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the applicant/appellant could not spare time to file the appeal. It was further stated that the delay was neither intentional, nor deliberate. 7. No reply to the application was filed by the respondents. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, on the application for condonation of delay, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, since the applicant/appellant remained ill and confined to bed, he could not file the appeal in time. He further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional, nor deliberate, but, on account of the circumstances, beyond his control. He further submitted that substantial question of law is involved, in the case, and if the delay is not condoned, then the applicant/appellant shall suffer injustice. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the applicant/appellant was never diligent and vigilant in pursuing his case. He further submitted that the complaint was filed by him, after a delay of six years and the same being palpably barred by time, was dismissed by the District Forum, on that ground alone. He further submitted that had the applicant/appellant been diligent he would have certainly filed the appeal within the statutory period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He further submitted that the copies of the OPD slips, produced by the complainant, to show that he was ill and was confined to bed, do not prove his assertion. He further submitted that one OPD slip is of Dabur Dhanwantry Hospital, Sector-46, Chandigarh, where some medicines were prescribed to the applicant/appellant, as on 27.6.2009. He further submitted that the second OPD slip is of Government Medical College Hospital, Chandigarh , which showed that the applicant/appellant was suffering from alcoholic liver disease. He was advised certain medicines on 3.7.2009. He further submitted that he never remained admitted in the hospital. He further submitted that the order was passed by the District Forum on 30.1.2009 and both these OPD slips, relate to the period about 5-6 months thereafter. He further submitted that no explanation was furnished, as to why, the appeal could not be filed, earlier to 27.6.2009 or 3.7.2009. He further submitted that there is no sufficient cause, for condonation of delay, and the appeal be dismissed, being barred by time. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, on the application, for condonation of delay , we are of the considered opinion, that the same is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, the case set up by the applicant/appellant, in the application, was to the effect that he was ill and confined to bed, and, therefore, could not file the appeal within the statutory period of limitation. However, this plea of the applicant/appellant is not supported by the aforesaid OPD slips. It was not that either before 30.1.2009 when the order was pronounced, by the District Forum, or immediately thereafter, that the applicant/appellant was suffering from some disease and remained in the hospital confined to bed, and therefore, could not file the appeal in time. The applicant/appellant has miserably failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 196 days, in filing the appeal, which is 6 months and 16 days, beyond the normal period of 30 days, within which the applicant/appellant could file an appeal. There was complete inaction and lack of bona-fides, on the part of the applicant/appellant, in filing the appeal in time. No sufficient cause, therefore, is constituted for condonation of such a long delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) II(2009)CPJ 29(SC), while considering the provisions of Section 24A of the Act, held as under ; “Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus: “24A. Limitation period—(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.” It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” 12. No doubt, in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with Section 24A of the Act, relating to the filing of a complaint within a period of two years, from the date of accrual of cause of action. However, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is also equally applicable to the facts of the instant case. As stated above, there was complete inaction and lack of bona-fides, on the part of the applicant/appellant, in filing the appeal, in time. No ground, whatsoever, therefore, is made out, for condonation of delay of 196 days. The application, thus, deserves to be dismissed. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the application for condonation of delay of 196 days, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal, being barred by time, is also dismissed, with no order as to costs. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
