STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

The Executive Director, Sale and Marketing, Renault India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office: A.S.V Ramana Tower, 37-38, 4^th floor, Venkatnarayana road,T.road, Chennai-600017, through authorized representative. 

                                                                   ….Appellant

                                                   Versus

 1.Paramjit Singh Brar son of Sh.Malkiat Singh Brar, R/o House No.1275, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh  

2.  PMG Auto Pvt. Ltd., Showroom No.47, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Director/Authorized Representative .

                                                                                   ……Respondents

                 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986                           against  order dated 28.02.2019 passed by District Consumer                          Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No.                            299/2017..

Argued by:  Mr. Ashish Rawal,   Advocate for the appellant.

BEFORE:       JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                       MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                 Appellant/OP No.1 has filed this appeal  against order dated 28.02.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(II), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only),  allowing  a consumer complaint filed by the respondent No.1/ complainant, directing the appellant and OP No.2/respondent No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.59,901/- which was wrongly charged towards repairs of a car which was under warranty. The Forum further granted Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for suffering mental and physical harassment.

 2.           This appeal is barred by limitation of 45 days (as per office 27 days).  To condone the delay, an application has been moved, paragraph Nos.3,4 & 5 of which read thus;

                “3.That the Appellant became aware of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Ld.Forum only on 28.02.2019, wherein it was communicated to him that the certified copy of the order would be provided to it. However, no certified copy was provided to the applicant and the same was not received by the applicant at its registered address.

                4.The Certified copy of the order was made available         to the applicant on 18.03.2019 and was received by the               Counsel on 18.03.2019.

                5.The order dated 28.02.2019 was perused by the                      Appellant and the details of the case of the                                Complainant were traced. The delay of 45 days in filing         of the Appeal is bonafide.”

3.            As per office record, free certified copy of the order was supplied to  Counsel for the  company on 18.3.2019, on which date copy was also sent to OP No.2.

 4.           It is true that the Courts are not supposed to decline remedy to a litigant on the basis of bar of limitation, however, in cases, where  no explanation whatsoever is given, compassion cannot be shown to the said litigant.  The appellant is a company of repute expected to have a legal team at its office. It was supposed to furnish explanation how delay has occurred, whether same is justified or not; who is responsible for the same and why it was not possible to file appeal in time.  Receipt of certified copy of the order under challenge on 18.3.2019 is admitted. Thereafter, not a single word has  been said as to why delay has been caused in filing the appeal.  In the affidavit to support the application for condonation of delay, nothing has also been said. Perusal of the documents on record indicates that the affidavit was got notarized on 3.5.2019. Further the application appears to have been  signed by the Counsel for judgment debtor on the same date. Why delay occurred thereafter, nothing has been explained.    

5.              No doubt, the Courts are very lenient in condoning the delay.  However, in cases, where no sufficient cause is offered, such a compassion cannot be shown in favour of a litigant.   The Hon’ble  Supreme court in  Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, V(2010) SLT 790-III, (2010) CLT 201 (SC),  observed as under:-

“The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its  power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.”

 In  Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013 the Hon’ble Supreme Court  had refused to condone the delay of even 13 days.

6.                In view of  above discussion,   as no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 45 days (as per office 27 days), in filing the appeal, the application, thus, stands dismissed. Consequently, appeal also  fails, and the same is  dismissed.

7.          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

8.              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion