Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1206/2016

Central Board of Secondary Education Through its Regional Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajendar Kothari s/o Late Shri Milap Chand Kothari - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Raghav

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1206 /2016

 

Central Board of Secondary Education through its Regional Director, Regional office, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer & ors.

Vs.

Rajendra Kothari s/o late Sh.Milap Chand Kothari r/o 307 Moti Vihar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 13.7. 2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. M.S.Raghav counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 1^st dated 26.5.2016 whereby the claim

2

 

has been allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 88 days.

 

A bare perusal of the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act reveals no ground for delay. Only this much has said that delay occurred due to process steps hence, in very casual and perfunctory manner the application has been filed without setting any cause much less the reasonable cause. It has been stated that the appellants were served before the Forum below but due to some cause they could not appear hence, their contention could not be submitted before the Forum below. Again this appeal has been filed with delay of 88 days. Hence, in view of this inordinate delay which has not been even explained, this appeal is liable to be rejected and reliance could be placed on 2016 NCJ 16 Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Munish Dev Sharma where the National Commission has held after relying on the judgment passed by the apex court in the case of Anshul Agarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (IV ( 2006) CPJ 63 (SC) ) as under:

 

“ while deciding the application filed for condonation of

3

 

 

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 the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are as under:

 

“ 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.”

 

 

Hence, in view of the above the appeal is not maintainable after inordinate delay.

 

Submission has also been made on merit that the Forum below was not having jurisdiction and reliance has been placed on I (2003) CPJ 248 Dr.R.C.Sharma Vs. Jage Ram , judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3911/2003

4

 

Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha and Civil Appeal No. 6807/2008 Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur and other contention of the appellant is that as per examination bylaws no change in the date of birth could be recorded once it has been recorded in the Board's record. Be that may be the case when appeal is not maintainable due to inordinate delay these contentions cannot be considered.

 

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm