Punjab

StateCommission

A/1382/2014

M/S Central Computer Services - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Gupta

16 Mar 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

Miscellaneous Application No. 2117 of 2014

in/and

First Appeal No. 1382 of 2014

                                                           

                                   Date of institution: 10.10.2014 

                             Date of Decision:    16.3.2015

 

1. M/s Central Computer Services, SCF 14, GTB Market, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana through its Sole Proprietor Sh. Ajit Sharma.
2. Ajit Sharma, Sole Proprietor, M/s Central Computer Services, SCF 14, GTB Market, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana

…..Appellants/Complainants

                                      Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Opp. Grain Market, G.T. Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana through its Branch Manager. 

…..Respondent/Opposite Party

 

First Appeal against the order dated 30.6.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants            :         Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate

          For the respondent          :         Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellants/complainants (hereinafter referred as “complainants”) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 30.6.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No. 838 dated 10.10.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainants was allowed with a direction to the opposite party to pay the claim to the complainants on the basis of second surveyor report Ex. R-10 and further directed to pay Rs. 35,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses.

Misc. Application No. 2117 of 2014

2.                Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed to condone of delay of 63 days in filing the appeal. In the application, it has been submitted that the complaint was decided on 30.6.2014 and certified copy of the same was supplied to the applicant on 9.7.2014 and then he approached his counsel on 8.10.2014 to file the appeal under the impression that a period of limitation is 90 days and consequently, the delay of 63 days occurred. Accordingly, it was requested to condone the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal.

3.                The respondents/Ops filed reply taking preliminary objections that the appellants/complainants have no prima-facie case and the appeal has been filed just to harass the Ops and that he has not filed any document that delay is not intentional and that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that each and every day delay has to be explained, therefore, the application is without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                Limitation has been provided under the Act as 30 days to file the appeal against the order passed by the learned District Forum. No doubt that the appeal can be filed alongwith application for condonation of delay but there should be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Ignorance of law is no excuse and cannot be considered as a sufficient ground to say that he took the period for appeal as 90 days instead of 30 days.

5.                The main ground taken by the counsel for the appellant/applicant is that he missed of the limitation period as 90 days instead of 30 days as a result of that there was delay of 63 days in filing the appeal. However, there is judgment II (2002) CPJ 401 “Megh Ram versus Delhi Vidyut Board” wherein it was observed that ignorance and illiteracy is not sufficient cause to condone the delay.

6.                The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in case “Jagmal Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Others, 2009(2) RCR (Civil)-349 (P&H)” that:-

            “Proof of sufficient cause is condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay ………….”.

7.                It is settled position that ignorance of limitation period is not a sufficient reason to condone the delay. It is held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case “National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ajmer Singh Kushwaha”, I (2012) CPJ 302 (NC) in para No. 3(relevant portion) observed as follows:-

“…Even if we agree with the version of the petitioner and count the limitation from the date of the clarificatory order of the State Commission passed on 27.9.2010 which was, according to petitioner’s own admission, received by the petitioner Company on 11.10.2010 still there is delay in filing the revision petition since the period of only 90 days is available for filing the revision petition under the law. While we are quite conscious of the fact that the Courts have to adopt a liberal and pragmatic rather than pedantic approach while construing the reasons for delay, the fact remains that the petitioner, on his part, has to explain each day’s delay with justification for that delay. In the present case, the petitioner and learned Counsel have not only failed to offer any convincing and satisfactory reasons for the delay, it appears from the submissions made before us that the petitioner has taken the condonation for granted by eating it as a mere formality. It must be appreciated that filing of revision petition within the prescribed period is the requirement under the law and unless there are adequate and convincing reasons for the delay, the same cannot be condoned. Since, we are not at all convinced with the vague and general submissions made by the petitioner in support of the delay in question, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation.”

8.                It was also held by the Hon’ble National Commission in “M/s Arihant Builders & Ors. Versus  Gaurav Anand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.”, 2012(4) CPR 487 (NC) that it was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Victor Albuquerque v. Saraswat Co-operation Bank Ltd.”, AIR 1988 (Bom.) 346 that:-

“where the facts showing clear negligence of party during entire period of limitation and no sufficient cause sustained for delay in filing appeal, the delay cannot be condoned.”

9.                In case no sufficient ground has been there in the application, then the application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed and we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay, therefore, we do not see any merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed.

MAIN CASE

10.              Appeal is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.

12.              The arguments in the application for condonation of delay were heard on 11.3.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

March 16, 2015.                                                      (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                Member