Haryana

StateCommission

A/296/2015

TAYAL INDIA MOTORS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJEEV KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.BANSA.

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.296  of 2015

Date of the Institution: 26.03.2015

Date of Decision: 04.08.2016

 

M/s Tayal India Motors Pvt. Ltd., 15/3, Mathura Road, Faridabad through its General Manager (Sales) Mr. Sanjeev Ratra.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shri K.P.Singh, R/o E-18, Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad Distt. Faridabad.

 

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.S.R.Bansal, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

          Alongwith the appeal, appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1967 (in short “Act”) read with section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Consumer Act”) for condonation of delay of  981 days in filing appeal, wherein it is alleged that  Sh.Deeptak Thukral was authorized to file appeal before this Commission. Relevant documents  were handed over to him.  It was told that appeal was fixed in the month of September 2012.  In the meantime respondent/decree-holder (D.H/complainant) filed an execution petition and Sh.Udai Chaudhary Advocate appeared on it’s behalf and filed objections on 06.07.2012 and the execution proceedings were adjourned for filing reply by the decree holder.  In the meantime decree-holder filed an application and got issued attachment letter dated 17.03.2015.  Thereafter doubt arose about Mr. Udai Chaudhary Advocate because he did not inform about the status of execution and attachment order.  It’s the general Manager sales came to know about attachment on 17.03.2015 through it’s bankers. Thereafter Sh.S.R.Bansal, Advocate was asked to collect certified copies of order etc. and to enquire about status of the case. Then it came to notice that neither the objection petition nor the application filed for dismissal of execution proceedings were decided. Sh.S.R.Bansal appeared on his behalf before District Forum Faridabad on 24.03.2015 and apprised about entire facts.  Thereafter execution proceedings were got adjourned to  17.04.2015 for evidence of decree-holder. After completing all the formalities this appeal was filed on 25.03.2015. As the previous counsels did not inform about the development in the case so appeal could not be filed in time.  The delay is unintentional and may be condoned.

2.      Arguments heard. File perused.

3.      Learned counsel  for the appellant/applicant vehemently argued that the previous counsels did not inform about  development of the entire matter.  After attachment order the present counsel was contacted and he brought all the facts to the notice of the O.P.  He obtained all the documents on 19.03.2015 and thereafter this appeal was filed on 25.03.2015 because there were intervening holidays. In this way the delay was not intentional and the same be condoned.

4.         This argument is of no avail.  The impugned order dated 18.06.2012 was passed in the presence of the counsel of the O.P.  There was ample opportunity with the appellant to enquire about the matter.  It cannot be presumed that the appellant did not ask for almost three years about the fate of the appeal. They took the matter casually and when the warrant of attachment was issued then preferred this appeal. When the appellant filed objections it could have enquired about the appeal.  It shows that appellant was sleeping over it’s right and now the blame has been put on the counsels. When a party is negligent to this extent it has no right to get the delay condoned

5.          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 rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

          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 litigantwho 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.”

6.      Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find it fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and this appeal is also dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

 

August 4th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.