Haryana

StateCommission

A/1589/2017

PARVEEN GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  : 1589 of 2017

Date of Institution: 21.12.2017

Date of Decision : 13.03.2018

 

Parveen Goel son of Sh. Sat Parkash, resident of Patialian Street, Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

 Versus

 

1.      Punjab National Bank, Thana Chhapar, Mustafabad Road, Thana Chhapar, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sabharwal Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

 

3.      Medi Assist India TPA Private Limited, SCO 61, 2^nd Floor, Phase 7, Mohali (Pb.) through its General Manager.

 Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for the appellant.

         

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, Parveen Goel-complainant (appellant) has challenged the order dated September 12^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was partly allowed.  For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “24.   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite parties No.2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law..…”

 

2.      The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 411 days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken in paragraphs No.2 & 3 of the application are as under:-

“2.     That the order was passed by the learned District Forum on September 12^th, 2016 and the same was received/delivered on September 16^th, 2016 to the counsel of the appellant.  The counsel of the appellant, who was engaged by him in the DCDRF, Yamuna Nagar informed the present appellant about the fate of the complaint.  The applicant/appellant visited the office of his counsel but the clerk of the counsel told that file of the appellant has been misplaced somewhere while shifting of office and could not be traced out.  And thereafter applicant continuously visited 3-4 times to the office of counsel but file could not be traced out.

3.      That ultimately file was traced out and appellant received a telephonic intimation from counsel of counsel on December 10^th, 2017 that the file has been traced out.  Thereafter, the appellant visited the office of the counsel below at Yamuna Nagar and received the case file.  After receiving the case file, the appellant rushed to the State Commission at Panchkula and engaged the counsel to file present appeal.  Due to the fact and circumstances mentioned, the delay of 411 days has been occurred which is beyond the control of appellant.”

 

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances mentioned above.

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 vague and far from being satisfactory.

5.      By now it is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly.

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2),Scale 108, has held that “We hold that each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained.  This is the basic test which needs to be applied.  The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

7.      In Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 it has been held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

8.      In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications filed on frivolous grounds are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

9.      The ground taken in the application as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance. So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 411 days.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

10.    Even on merits, there is no force in the instant appeal.  The complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.  The District Forum directed the opposite parties No.2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint. Besides this, the District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.  The complainant has already been adequately compensated because in the complaint itself he did not ask for interest whereas the District Forum awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum.    

11.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, limitation as well as on merits.

 

 

Announced 13.03.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK