04/03/15
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT
This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 174 days in filing this Appeal.
It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the judgment was passed by the Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II on 01/10/13. The Appellants came to know about the judgment of the Learned District Forum in the 1st week of January, 2014. Pursuant to the negotiation going on between the parties during the pendency of the complaint case, the Appellant paid the excess amount on 18/01/14 and extended warranty papers were also supplied to the Complainant as per earlier negotiation held between the parties. The Appellant is aggrieved by the last part of the impugned order of the Learned District Forum below as to the payment of the sum of Rs.50,000/- with the SCWF and the penal clause in case of failure to comply with the said order.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant has complied with the direction made to the Appellant/OP so far as the payment to the Complainant is concerned, but as to the direction contained in the last part of the order the Appellant is aggrieved and has filed the instant Appeal. It is submitted that the talk of compromise was going on between the parties and, as such, the Appeal could not be filed within time. It is contended that there was no intentional laches on the part of the Appellant. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No.3137 of 2009 [M/s Arjun Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sri Jagbir Sharma & Anr.].
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the petition for condonation of delay and submitted that there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. The Learned District Forum recorded that the OP received the notice and thereafter appeared on 03/05/13 by filing vakalatnama and prayed for time to file W.V., but ultimately OP did not turn up to contest the case. It is clear that the averment made in the petition for condonation of delay that the Appellant came to know about the judgment of the Learned District Forum in the 1st week of January 2014 is not correct. The OP/Appellant herein having entered appearance in the complaint proceedings did not contest the case and ultimately the judgment was passed by the Learned District Forum on 01/10/13 ex parte. From the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant it is also clear that the direction given by the Learned District Forum in the impugned judgment and order has been complied with in part. Having regard to the submission made by both sides and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the view that the delay of 174 days in filing this Appeal has not been sufficiently explained.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has been pleased to observe as follows:
“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras.”
The petition for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the Appeal being time barred also stands dismissed.
