Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 1928 of  2011

Uttar Pradesh Transport Company (regd.)s/200,

Transport Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow through

its Proprietor Dilip Samant, aged about 55 years,

s/o late Sri Badal Chandra Samant.                     …Appellant.                                                                         

1- M/s Beiersdorf India Private Limited, Vajay

    Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.

2- Sri Anil Singh C/o A.K. Enterprises, B-2/246,

    Bhadaini, Varanasi.

3- Sri Gopal Sharma C/o Mahadeo Enterprises,

    1/719, Gurudwara Gali, Ram Nagar, Varanasi.

4- Sri Purushottam C/o Maroo & Maroo,

    CK-39/1-4, Golghar, Varanasi.                   …Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Miss Smita Singh, Advocate for appellant.

Sri O.P. Duvel, Advocate for the respondent no.1.

Date  7.3.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 28.5.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow in execution case no.131 of 2002.

          We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Miss Smita Singh and  ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 Sri O.P. Duvel on the point of delay and perused the record.

          The appellant has moved an application dated 10.10.2011 to condone the delay accompanied with affidavit.

The appellant has stated that the ex-parte impugned  judgment and order dated 28.5.2011 passed in the complaint case no.14 of 2004 and he came to know about it through

(2)

execution case no.23 of 2011 which was fixed for 8.10.2011. No copy of the judgment received by the appellant through the District Forum, so delay be condoned and the appeal be allowed.

We have seen the judgment. The judgment has been pronounced on 28.5.2011 and the copy was issued on 10.10.2011. Thereafter, the appeal has been filed on 11.10.2011. The appellant has filed copy of the complaint with appeal.

We have seen the copy of the complaint filed by the appellant in which the date mentioned as 9.1.2004. It clearly establishes the fact that the notice has been properly served on the appellant and the copy of the complaint was received by him and that copy is now filed with appeal bearing date of 9.1.2004.

We have seen the judgment in which it has been clearly mentioned that the opposite parties no.2, 3 and 4 were appeared before the ld. District Forum and on the application of the complainant their names were struck off on 1.8.2005. In spite of it the appellant has made the opposite parties no.2, 3 & 4 as respondents. As far as the opposite party no.1 is concerned, the ld. Forum has specifically mentioned that after serving of notice he did not appear before the ld. District forum. There is clear cut delay in filing of the appeal and the grounds mentioned in the affidavit are not satisfactory. No satisfactory reply of day-to-day delay has been given.  

Regarding delay, following judgments are worth mentioning.

(3)

1. In Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Naresh Singh, I(2013) CPJ 407 (NC), where the delay was of 71 days only, it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that "condonation cannot be a matter of routine and the petitioner is required to explain delay for each and every date after expiry of the period of limitation". In the instant matter, the appellants have not given any explanation of delay for each and every day.
2. In U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Brij Kishore Pandey, IV (2009) CPJ 217 (NC), where the delay was of only 84 days, it was held that "this is enough to demonstrate that there was no reason for this delay, much less a sufficient cause to warrant its condonation." In the instant matter, the cause shown by the appellants has been vehemently denied by the respondent on cogent reasons.
3. In Anshul Agarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 62 (SC), it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "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 special period of limitation has been  prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matter and the objection of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petition against the orders of Consumer Fora."

(4)

The appellant failed to satisfy the State Commission regarding delay, we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed as time barred.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed as time barred. The judgment and order dated 28.5.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow in execution case no.131 of 2002 is confirmed.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2