ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.468 of 2013

Jyoti Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Gahlau Iglas,

Gonda Road, Aligarh through its Proprietor,

Sri Mohan Singh.                                          …..Appellant.

Versus

Sri Prem Pal Singh s/o Sri Nirangan Singh,

R/o Village Raipur Post Mai, Tehsil, Iglas,

District, Aligarh.                                          …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri R.K. Gupta, Member.

None appeard for the appellant.

Sri S.K. Sharma for the respondent.

Date  30.4.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Appeal taken up for hearing. None responds on behalf of the appellant Jyoti Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. There is no application for adjournment either. Ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri S.K. Sharma is present all along. Since the appeal is pending for the last 2 years for admission, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act, 68 of 1986, we preferred to proceed with the matter.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant had stored 244 gunny bags of potato for seeding purposes in the appellant Cold Storage which were not given back to him when claimed. The appellant did not put in its appearance before the Forum below in spite of service. Therefore, the Forum proceeded

(2)

with the matter and allowed the complaint after exparte hearing on 26.3.2012. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant appeal was filed on 11.3.2013. The impugned judgment and order factually correct and  is based on documentary evidence on record. There is no irregularity or illegality in it and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. The appellant had full knowledge of the impugned order dated 26.3.2012. Thereafter, it filed Misc. Case no.272 of 2012 through its Proprietor for setting aside the same which was rejected on 31.1.2013. It preferred the appeal on 11.3.2013. Hence, it is prima-facie barred by limitation. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in Himanchal Furistict Communications & Ors. vs. K.C. Agarwal & Ors., IV(2013) CPJ 567 (NC), that protracted correspondence or misconceived litigation does not extend limitation period for filing the complaints or appeals. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal, being meritless and barred by limitation, is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

ORDER

The appeal, being meritless and barred by limitation, is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (R.K. Gupta)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4