RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.345 of 2002

Gulzar Cold Storage & Ice Factory,

G.T. Road, Bhogaon District, Mainpuri

Through its Proprietor Arif Ali.                   ...Appellant.

Versus

Ram Gopal s/o Anwar Singh,

R/o Kota Tada,  Tehsil, Bhjogaon,

District Mainpuri.                                    .…Respondent.

Present:-

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

2- Hon’ble Sri Jugul Kishor, Member.

Sri M.H. Khan, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Date        3.2.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri M.H. Khan on the point of admission; and have perused the records in the light of his arguments.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that complaint case no.4 of 1998 was decided by the Ld. DCDRF, Mainpuri on 31.7.2001. The instant appeal was filed on 12.2.2002, whereas it was required to file the appeal by 31.8.2001. Thus, the appeal is barred by limitation for about 162 days. The appellant had full knowledge about the complaint case. The registered notice was served upon him on 27.11.1998. Thereafter, the appellant appeared through his counsel and moved application for time to file W.S. The time was granted on 26.3.1999 and thereafter, on 26.5.1999, 16.8.1999, 4.9.1999, 30.10.1999, 6.1.2000, 16.2.2000, 19.2.2000,

(2)

7.3.2000, 10.4.2000, 31.5.2000, 2.8.2000, 25.9.2000, 4.12.2000, 19.1.2001, 5.3.2001 and 14.5.2001 for filing its W.S. and upon its failure to do so, the Forum below proceeded exparte against it. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application on 1.6.2001 for recalling the order for exparte proceeding and thereafter, sufficient time was provided  and ultimately, exparte order was pronounced on 31.7.2001. Thus, the appellant had full knowledge about the entire proceedings before the Forum below. The appellant meticulously tried to avoid all these remisses on its part and obtained a copy of judgment on 1.2.2002 and filed the appeal on 12.2.2002. Under the given circumstances, it is clear that the appellant deliberately failed to place true facts before us. The appellant has not moved any application for condonation of delay. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factum, we are now required to see whether this inordinate delay of 162 days can be condoned or not in the light of conduct of the appellant from the initial stage of the complaint case no.4 of 1998.

Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, in such form an manner as may be prescribed; provided that the State Commission may entertained an appeal after expiry of the said period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. In the instant, matter, the delay is of 162 days in filing the appeal and, therefore, we are required to see whether there is any sufficient cause for

(3)

not filing the appeal within the statutory period of 30 days or not. In Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Naresh Singh, I(2013) CPJ 407 (NC), where the delay was of 71 days only, it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that:

"condonation cannot be a matter to routine and the petitioner is required to explain delay for each and every date after expiry of the period of limitation".

Similarly, in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Brij Kishore Pandy, IV (2009) CPJ 217 (NC), the delay of 111 days was not condoned as day-to-day delay was not explained. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. V.P. Narayanan, IV (2011) CPJ 155 (NC), where the delay was of only 84 days, it was held that:

"this is enough to demonstrate that there was no reason for this delay, much less a sufficient cause to warrant its condonation". 

In Anshul Agarwal Vs. NOIDA, IV(2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 7 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 petition filed against the orders of the Consumer Fora."

          It may be observed here that even after a party cites sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond the period of

(4)

limitation, it cannot claim condonation as a matter of right. The proof of sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction, vested in the Fora under Section 15 of the Act. If "sufficient cause" is not shown, nothing further is required to be done; and the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If, however, a sufficient cause is shown, then Forum has to enquire whether, in its discretion, it should condone the delay or not? This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant and trust-worthy facts, and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona-fide may fall for consideration but the scope of enquiry, while exercising the discretionary power, after sufficient cause is

shown, would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Forum may record as relevant and trust-worthy.

          We have given due consideration on all the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and in view of the discussions made hereinabove and rulings laid down by the Hon'ble Appellate Courts, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not submitted any cogent reason or shown any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 162 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has not come up before us with clean hands and tried to give an impression that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation from the date of obtaining certified copy of the judgment. Besides this, the appellant has not even moved any application for condonation. The object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will certainly get frustrated if such belated appeals are entertained on ground of untenable excuses. 

(5)

          Apart from this, a perusal of the records would show that the respondent Sri Ram Gopal had kept 127 bags of potatoes in the appellant Gold Storage on 26.2.1997 vide receipts no.158, 159 and 358. The potatoes got petrified due to inappropriate storage and, therefore, could not be returned. Consequently, respondent/complainant Sri Ram Gopal filed complaint case no.4 of 1998 before the Forum below whereby he claimed a sum of Rs.1,79600.00 as compensation. However, on the basis of the facts, circumstance and evidence on record, the Forum below awarded only a sum of Rs.35,442.00 with 12% and Rs.500.00 as cost of litigation. The judgment based on facts, circumstances and available on record. There is no irregularity and illegality in it and, therefore, it calls for no interference. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage as barred by limitation also.  

ORDER

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

         (A.K. Bose)                                (Jugul Kishor)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.4