Haryana

StateCommission

A/1057/2016

SUBHASH RAGHAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARLE G BISCUIT PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

TANMOY GUPTA

30 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                                First Appeal No.           1057 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       04.11.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         30.03.2018

 

Subhash Raghav, Proprietor of Raghav General Store, Village Daula, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon.

                             Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Parle G Biscuits Private Limited, C/o Dabar and Corporation Kataria Complex, New Daulatabad Road, Gurgaon, H.O. at Pankaj Plaza, City No.37-38, Flat No.106-206, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

 

2.      Ashoka General Store through its Property Sarwan Kumar, Old Bus Stand, and Near Gurudwara, Sohna, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon through its proprietor.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                            

 

Argued by:                    Shri Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the appellant

                             Shri Harish Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1 

                             (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated October 23^rd, 2017)

                              

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J,

 

          By filing the present appeal, Subhash Raghav-complainant has challenged the order dated May 31^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed. 

2.      Alongwith the appeal, the appellant-complainant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 117 days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken in paragraphs No.2 to 4 of the application is as under:-

“2.     That the appellant was not aware that he has right to file the appeal before this Hon’ble Court.  When he got information about the same through his counsel in the Forum when he went to his office to collect his file on 24.10.2016, he immediately approached his counsel and hence the present appeal is being filed today without any further delay but in this process a delay of 117 days has occurred.”

 

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to beyond control.

4.      This Commission has considered the submission made on behalf of the complainant. The explanation for the delay caused in filing of the appeal is far from being satisfactory.

5.      The apex court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held 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 the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 

6.      In Balwant Singh Vs.  Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held:                    

“The party should show that besides acting bonafide, 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. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]”.

7.   In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

 “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

8.      In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

9.      In this case, the appellant has taken casual approach and have not proved to be a prudent litigant. The ground on which the condonation of delay is sought is not cogent to condone the delay of 117 days in filing of the appeal.   Ignorance of law is not an excuse to seek condonation of delay. The ground (reproduced in paragraph No.2) is not acceptable at all.  It is vague. A valuable right which has accrued to the opposite party cannot be thrown away in a casual manner. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for condonation of delay of 117 days in filing of the appeal is made out.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

10.    Coming now to the merits of the case.   The complainant was running general store under the name and style of ‘Raghav General Store’.  He purchased goods and articles from Ashoka General Store-opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.2 was the distributor.  The complainant was retailer.  The opposite party No.2 issued three coupons to the complainant under a scheme.  The complainant became successful in the scheme.  As per the scheme, the winner was to get car Maruti Suzuki WagonR make. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite party No.1.   The claim was not settled on the ground that the scheme was meant for wholesalers and not for retailers.   Vide Annexure -3, the opposite party No.1 set an objective to achieve minimum 30% growth over September-October, 2007, average primary sales in November, 2007.   The complainant did not produce any document to show that he was wholesaler and entitled to the benefit of scheme launched by the opposite party No.1.  In view of this, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, limitation as well as on merits.

 

Announced 30.03.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK