STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH

Revision Petition No.18 of 2009

Mrs. Satinder Kaur wife of Late Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, Ex-Revenue Minister, Punjab resident of House No.46, Sector 5-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ..…Revisionist/Complainant.

Versus

1.      New India Assurance Company Limited through its Managing Director, having its registered Head Office, New Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

2.      The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, branch Office, 350-306, SCO No.114-116, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

                                                            ..…Respondents/OPs.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

ARGUED BY: Sh. Anil Mahajan, Advocate for the revisionist.

                        Sh. Sunny Singla, Advocate proxy for

                        Sh. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

1.             This is a revision petition filed against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 30.9.2009 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.175 of 2009 vide which the learned District Forum dismissed the application moved by the complainant for restoration of complaint case No.663 of 1994, which was dismissed for non-prosecution.

2.             Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed reply by way of affidavit of Sh. K. B. Jindal, Manager wherein the averments made in the revision have been specifically contested on oath.

3.             The learned counsel for the revisionist/complainant argued that on 22.4.1998, the date fixed for final hearing of the complaint before the learned District Forum, the counsel for the complainant had to go outstation i.e.Jammu in connection with some court work and he had requested one of his colleague to appear on the date fixed and sought adjournment in the matter. The learned counsel next argued that when the counsel for the complainant came back on 25.4.1998, he was shocked to know that the complaint had been dismissed in default by the learned District Forum. Thereafter, as per the learned counsel for the revisionist, the complainant filed an application for restoration of the said complaint before the learned District Forum, which was duly accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 11 Years and 3 Months in filing the restoration application. The learned counsel further argued that the learned District Forum dismissed the application for restoration without proper application of mind and without going into the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. As regards the delay of 11 years and 3 months, the learned counsel submitted that the said delay took place as the complainant (applicant) was very active in politics and being the President of Pradesh Mahila Congres (I), Chandigarh was totally engrossed in her political work and as such, a long delay took place in filing the restoration application.

4.             After going through the record on file as well as the impugned order and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the application for restoration of the complaint case due to the reason that the revisionist/complainant has failed to show that what prevented her to file the restoration application after such a long period of 11 years and 3 months. The plea taken by the complainant to prove her bonafide as regards delay that she was very active in politics being the President of Pradesh Mahila Congress (I), Chandigarh is of no help at this stage. Even on bare perusal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, which is annexed at Page 12 of the revision petition, it is noticed by us that there is no mention in the application why the delay in filing the restoration application took place and the contents of the application for condonation of delay are general in nature. Thus, in our view, the learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the application for restoration of the complaint case after finding no merit in it. Reference may be made to the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, 1997 (4) RCR (Civil) 242 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extent the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Similarly in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Babli & others, FAO No.1567 of 2008 (O&M) decided on 23.5.2008, the Hon’ble High Court had held that “…..sufficient cause with the meaning of the provisions may be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of Section and the test to be applied would be to see whether it was a bonafide cause….”. In another matter reported as Bimla Devi Vs. Faquir Singh, 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 485, the Hon’ble High Court refused to condone the delay of 973 days with the remarks that nothing prevented the litigant from contacting her counsel to inquire about the fate of her case. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion and the law settled on the subject, it is established on record that the complainant has totally failed to show her bonafide for the delay that took place in filing the restoration application and for not appearing on the date fixed in the complaint case. We are also of the view that the act and conduct of the complainant clearly shows that as though she was not at all interested in pursing her complaint case rather subsequently took unexplained period of 11 years and 3 years in filing the restoration application, which is unacceptable and deplorable to any court of law.

5.             In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

6.             Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

21^st July 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-

Ad/-