Haryana

StateCommission

A/865/2019

HOUSING BOARD HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJEEV KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

11 Feb 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.865 of 2019

Date of Institution:19.09.2019

Date of decision:11.02.2020

 

1.      Chief Revenue Officer (PM) for Chief Administrator, Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula, Plot No.C-15, AWAS Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

2.      Estate Manager, Housing Board, Haryana, Hisar, Sector 15A/305A, Hisar.

…Appellants

Versus

 

Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Sunder Shyam, resident of Village Talwara Khurd, Tehsil and District Sirsa, now resident of Petrol Pump Wali Gali, Gobind Nagar, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

 

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.B.S. Negi, counsel for the appellants.

                  

                                      O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL, MEMBER:

 

          Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties (in short ‘Ops’) against the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint of the complainant/respondent was allowed and directed as under:-

“We allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay/refund amount of Rs.3,91,486/- within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Ops are further directed to pay interest at the contractual rate of interest which has been agreed between the parties at the time of agreement from the date of acceptance of surrender request till actual realization. We also direct the Ops to further pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The Ops are liable to comply with this order within above stipulated period, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the Ops.”

 

2.               There is a delay of 173 days in filing the present appeal.  Along with the present appeal appellants have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 173 days wherein,  it is alleged that the impugned order dated 22.02.2019 passed by learned District Forum was prepared on 26.02.2019 and delivered to the appellants on 27.02.2019. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the concerned office for legal opinion and it was decided by the office of L.R on 29.05.2019 to prefer the appeal against the said impugned order was sent to the appellants and due to this reason delay of 173 days has been occurred, which is neither intentional nor deliberate.

3.                Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

4.                It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the matter was sent to the concerned office for legal opinion and it was decided by the office of L.R on 29.05.2019 to prefer the appeal against the said impugned order was sent to the appellants and due to this reason delay of 173 days has been occurred, which is neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional and may be condoned.

5.               However, the contention of learned counsel for appellants to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay of 173 days cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or cause to condone the same.

6.                Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“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 rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in 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.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed 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”.

 

7.                  In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 173 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. Moreover, present case is not good on merits. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed being time barred as well as on merits.

8.                  Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper identification and in accordance with rules after the expiry of period for filing revision, if any.

 

11^th February, 2020            Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                                                                 Addl. Bench                         Addl. Bench

 

R.K