Delhi

StateCommission

A/208/2017

PRABHA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARINDER KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

24 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  24.05.2017

Date of Decision :  26.05.2017

Appeal No. 208/2017

 

(Arising out of the order dated 18.02.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.741/14  by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-West)

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Prabha Rani,

C-731, Third Floor,

Sudershan Park, Moti Nagar,

Delhi-110015.                                                                                   ........Complainant

 

VERSUS

Narinder Kaur,

C-19, Second Floor,

Sudershan Park, Moti Nagar,

Delhi-110015.                                                                                  …….…Opp. Party

 

CORAM

 

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

Present  :   Ms. Monika Singh, Counsel for the Appellant.

 

PER : HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVATAVA, MEMBER

 

          Aggrieved by the orders dated 18.02.2017 passed by the District Forum-West in CC No.741/14 Smt. Prabha Rani has filed this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for relief as under :-

 

1. To call for this records of complaint case no.741/14 titled as Prabha Rani Versus Narinder Kaur pertaining to CDRS, Janak Puri.

 

2. To accept/admit the appeal of the appellant and to issue notice upon the respondent, as per the process of law;

 

3. To award the reliefs as stated above through the present Appeal;

 

4. To award cost of the present appeal proceedings;

 

5. To pass any order/further order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit as to serve the ends of justice.

 

          The matter was listed for the first time on 17.05.2017 when counsel for appellant prayed for one week’s time to file an application for condonation of delay.  The matter is accordingly listed today.  On 24.05.2017 she submitted that there is no delay in filing appeal as the orders passed on 18.02.2017 were received by her on 24.03.2017 and appeal was filed on 17.04.2017.  However on perusal of the record it is noticed that order passed on 18.02.2017 were issued on 23.02.2017 itself. There is nothing on record to show that the order was received or issued on 24.03.2017.

          On the face of it the appeal filed is time barred.  There is no application for condonation of delay.  Though on 17^th May, 2017 counsel for appellant has sought time to file application for condonation of delay but no such application has been filed, no sufficient cause has been shown during the course of the arguments.

          I have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

          This appeal is apparently barred by limitation.  Provisions of section 15  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is referred to as under:-

15.     Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

          Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

          In M/s. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramaniam, where delay of 78 days was not condoned in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) NO. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.07.2013, again the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. Vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission did not condone the delay of 77 days.

          Lastly, in Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.  & Ors., decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.

          On perusal of the provisions of law and judgements referred to above, I am of the considered view that the appeal is barred by limitation and accordingly is dismissed.  Moreover, there is no prayer for condonation of delay.

          Ordered accordingly.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to parties free of cost as contemplated under the provision of Consumer Protection Rules 987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2015.

 

          File be consigned to Record Room.

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA

   MEMBER