Order No. 10 date: 02-05-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

            Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the petition seeking condonation of delay of 129 days (excluding the statutory period of limitation) in moving this Appeal.

            Case of the Appellant is that it received copy of the impugned order along with notice for appearance on 21-01-2016 in respect of First Appeal No. A/1213/2015 from this Commission.  The Appellant did not receive certified copy of order from the Ld. District Forum as mandated in law.  On examination of the impugned order, it decided to file an Appeal and accordingly sent relevant documents to its local Advocate for drafting the Appeal which was finalized on 17-02-2016.  In the process delay caused in filing this Appeal.

            It appears from the impugned order under challenge that it was a contested case.  Therefore, it requires no mentioning that the Appellant was very much aware of the implication/effect of the said order.  Despite this, it sat simply idle for more than 4 months till 21-01-2016 till it received notice in respect of another Appeal being no. A/1213/2015. 

            The alibi of non-receipt of certified copy of order from the Ld. District Forum is nothing but a misnomer on the part of the Appellant given that there is no such provision under the Consumer Protection Act to supply ‘certified copy’ of order to litigants from the end of the Consumer Fora free of cost.

            Clearly, no ‘sufficient cause’ is spelt out in the petition for condonation of delay. Rather, from the conduct of the Appellant it is very much palpable that it intentionally delayed acting on the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum.  Let us not forget that the law aids the vigilant, not the negligent.

The enactment of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly intended at disposing of disputes in an expeditious manner. It is always desirable, therefore, that parties concerned would act to the true spirit of the Act.  We are of view that Consumer Fora would be falling in discharging its statutory responsibility if frivolous  petitions aimed at testing the patience of other side is entertained.    That petition being devoid of any merit, we are inclined to reject the petition at the threshold itself.

            Consequent thereof, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.