Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/72/2023

INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVINDER SINGH BARARA - Opp.Party(s)

VINEET SEHGAL

14 Aug 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Miscellaneous Application No.	:	327 of 2023
In Appeal No.	:	72 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	20.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	14.08.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1]      India Infoline Finance ltd. (India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd.), 12-A, 13^th Floor, Prinee Crescenzo, C-38 And C-39, G Block, Behind MCA, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051 through its Authorised Officer Paramjit Singh.

 

2]      India Infoline Finance ltd. (India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd.), SCO No.2907-2908, Sector 22-C, Second Floor, Chandigarh through its Authorised Officer Paramjit Singh.

 

….Applicants/Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Ravinder Singh Barara, Prop. Modern Arcade, H.No.838, Urban Estate, Sector 7, Ambala City, Haryana.

...Respondent/Complainant.

 

Miscellaneous Application No.	:	330 of 2023
In Appeal No.	:	73 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	20.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	14.08.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1]      India Infoline Finance Ltd. (India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd.), 12-A, 13^th Floor, Prinee Crescenzo, C-38 and C-39, G Block, Behind MCA, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051 through its Authorised Officer Paramjit Singh.

 

2]      India Infoline Finance ltd. (India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd.), SCO No.2907-2908, Sector 22-C, Second Floor, Chandigarh through its Authorised Officer Paramjit Singh.

 

….Applicants/Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Ravinder Singh Barara, Prop. Modern Arcade, H.No.838, Urban Estate, Sector 7, Ambala City, Haryana.

...Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for the applicants/appellants.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Handa, Advocate for the respondent. 

PER  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   Vide this order, we would like to dispose of Miscellaneous Applications No.327 of 2023 & 330 of 2023 filed by the applicants/appellants – India Infoline Finance Limited for condonation of delay in filing appeals bearing No.72 of 2023 & 73 of 2023 respectively.

2]                The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short “District Commission) decided consumer complaints No.985 of 2019 & 986 of 2019 on 21.11.2022 and the instant appeals bearing Nos.72 of 2023 & 73 of 2023 have been filed on 20.04.2023 i.e. after a delay of 104 days.

3]                In the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that after hearing the arguments at length on 16.11.2022, the matter was adjourned for 21.11.2022 for pronouncement of order.

4]                It is alleged in Para 5 of the application that the certified copy of the order, which was sent to the parties free of cost was not received by the applicants/appellants/opposite parties. Rather the applicants/appellants attained the knowledge of passing of order on 21.11.2022 only when they received the copy of summons issued by the District Commission in execution application No.8 of 2023. Thus, the appeal has been filed from the date of attaining knowledge. According to the applicants/appellants, non-receipt of the order  free of cost itself is sufficient cause to condone the delay. The contents of the application have been supported by the affidavit of Sh. Paramjit Singh, authorized representative of the applicants/appellants.

5]                The application for condonation of delay has been contested by the respondent/complainant by filing reply. In the reply, the averments of the application have been denied. According to the respondent/complainant, there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay and delay of 104 days has not been explained.

6]                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7]                The learned counsel for the applicants/appellants has submitted that non-receipt of the copy of order is itself a ground and the expression “sufficient cause” is to be receive liberal construction in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s GMG Engineering Industries & Ors. Vs. M/s ISSA Green Power Solution & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4472 of 2015 with Civil Appeal No.4473 of 2015 titled as A.C. Govindaraj and Ors. Vs. M. Krishnamoorthy & Ors., decided on 15.05.2015.

8]                On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that at the time of pronouncement, the counsel for the applicants/appellants was present and as such, the applicants/appellants have ample knowledge regarding the pendency of the complaint. He further submitted that even if certified copy of order was not received free of cost, it is no ground.

9]                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

10]              It is settled law that the laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as “statutes of peace and repose”. It is also equally settled that an unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; nevertheless, some kind of limitation is essential for public order.
The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. In Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It was further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It was further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It was further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It was observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It was further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.

11]              Similarly in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

12]              Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 21.11.2022 and these appeals have been filed on 20.04.2023 and there is delay of 104 days in filing the same. Under the provisions of Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, a copy of the final order is to be given to the parties free of cost.

13]              We have sought the report of learned District Commission regarding supply of copy of the impugned order free of charge and the learned District Commission reported as under:-

“Certified copy of order dated 21.11.2022 was sent to the OP No.1 & 2 including complainant through Speed-Post on Dated 25.11.2022. As per record the orders not received back. Tracking report not available being exceed 90 days. Copy of Dispatch register and receiving of postal service are attached herewith.”

14]              Perusal of report of learned District Commission transpires that the certified copy of order was sent through Speed post on 25.11.2022 at the proper address. There is also a presumption that it shall be deemed to be a proper service. It is undisputed fact that the arguments were heard in the presence of the parties and the order was pronounced in their presence. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants had submitted that after arguments, the case was not listed for orders by the learned District Commission and it was not to his knowledge. It may be stated here that so far as expression “sufficient cause” is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s GMG Engineering Industries & Ors. Vs. M/s ISSA Green Power Solution & Ors. (supra) has held in Para 8 as under:-

“8. It is well settled that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. When there is no negligence, inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to the appellants, the delay has to be condoned. The discretion is to be exercised like any other judicial discretion with vigilance and circumspection. The discretion is not to be exercised in any arbitrary, vague or fanciful manner. The true test is to see whether the applicant has acted with due diligence.”

15]              It is not the case that the applicants/appellants have not attained the knowledge of the decision of the complaint because the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants argued the complaint before the learned District Commission. It may be stated here that so far as the term expression “sufficient cause” is concerned, it is well settled principle of law that it should be given liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. However, the applicants/appellants in the case in hand have not acted with due diligence. Rather it seems that they were negligent. The impugned order was pronounced on 21.11.2022 in the presence of the counsel for the opposite parties (applicants/ appellants herein). Even if it is assumed that the certified copy free of cost was not received yet Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 requires that any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order and not from the date of its receipt. Further, it is provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. Further according to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or application may be accepted even after the limitation period for the same is over, if the appellant/applicant assures the court that he had a sufficient cause for not being able to file the appeal/application during the limitation period. If the court is satisfied, such delay in filing the appeal/application can be condoned irrespective of the party being a state or a private party.  Thus, the provisions of Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act are pari materia.

16]              In this view of the matter, the plea that the copy of the impugned order was not received free of cost and therefore, the applicants/appellants could not file appeal within the stipulated period is immaterial. The test laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s GMG Engineering Industries & Ors. Vs. M/s ISSA Green Power Solution & Ors. (supra) is to see, whether the applicants/appellants had acted with due diligence but we are of the view that the applicants/appellants have not acted with due diligence.

17]              Applying the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid decisions, to the facts of the case in hand and considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that as such, no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation has been offered by the appellants. Thus, the ratio laid down in M/s GMG Engineering Industries & Ors. Vs. M/s ISSA Green Power Solution & Ors. (supra) provides no help to the applicants/appellants. Accordingly, both these applications bearing Nos.327 of 2023 & 330 of 2023 stand dismissed. Consequently, the appeals bearing No.72 of 2023 & 73 of 2023 also stand dismissed being time barred having been filed beyond the period of limitation.

18]              Copy of this order be placed in the file of Appeal No.73 of 2023.

19]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

20]              Files be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

14.08.2023.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

Ad