STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.176 of 2010)

Sushma Arora daughter of Sh. Harbans Lal Arora resident of H.No.3557, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

……Applicant/Appellant

V e r s u s

1.                 Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India, Jeewan Deep Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh

2.                 Branch Manager, LIC of India Unit I, Jeewan Deep Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh. O.P. Sharda, Advocate for the respondents.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

1.                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                           Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 89 days (in fact 113 days) has been filed by the applicant/appellant, on the ground, that the order was rendered by the District Forum on 26.11.2009 and the certified copy thereof was obtained by the applicant/appellant on 2.12.2009. Thereafter, the applicant/ appellant consulted his Counsel for filing an appeal as the complaint of the applicant/appellant/ complainant was dismissed on the sole ground that the same was barred by time.  It was further stated that thereafter, funds were arranged for filing the appeal.  It was further stated that, on account of this reason, delay in filing the appeal occurred.  It was further stated that, there was no intentional or willful delay, in filing the appeal. 

3.                           No reply to the application was filed. 

4.                           We have heard the counsel for the parties on the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

5.                           The Counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate.  He further submitted that the delay occurred, on account of the reasons stated in the application.  He further submitted that substantial question of law, is involved, in the appeal, and the same be heard after condoning the delay.

6.                           On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/OP vehemently opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant/appellant, on the ground, that there was intentional and deliberate delay of 113 days, in filing the appeal.  He further submitted that the intention of the applicant/ appellant, throughout, was not bonafide.  He further submitted that even the complaint filed by the applicant/appellant/ complainant, was also dismissed on the ground, that the same was barred by limitation.  He further submitted that it was only on account of complete inaction, and lack of bonafides on the part of the applicant/appellant, that such delay occurred.  He further submitted that no sufficient cause was constituted from the grounds, set up in the application, under disposal, and, as such, the delay of 113 days, in filing the appeal, could not be condoned.

7.                           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the application and the appeal are liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.  The cause of action accrued to him on 1.6.2007 as is evident from para 3 of the impugned order and he filed the complaint before the District Forum on 19.11.2009. It was, under these circumstances, that relying on the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) that the District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Even after the dismissal of the complaint, on the sole ground that the same was palpably barred by time, the applicant/appellant did not become diligent and vigilant enough.  Again he committed the same mistake, by filing the appeal after the delay of 113 days.  Once the certified copy of the order had been obtained by the applicant/appellant, he was required to file the appeal immediately.  The mere ground that he could not arrange funds earlier, in itself, did not constitute sufficient cause, for condonation of delay.  If such a cause, for condonation of delay, is accepted, as sufficient cause, then in every case the litigant, by filing the appeal, after delay, would take such a frivolous ground seeking condonation of delay.  The delay of 113 days has not been satisfactorily explained. There was, thus, complete inaction and lack of bonafides, on the part of the applicant/appellant, in filing the appeal, in time.  Since no sufficient cause is established for filing the appeal, after a delay of 113 days, no ground is made out, for accepting the application under disposal.  In H.U.D.A. Vs. Randhir Singh-2010 (2) CPC 239, there was a delay of 182 days, in filing the appeal.  The same was not explained satisfactorily. Under these circumstances, the appeal was dismissed, being barred by time.  In State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) - II(2009) CPJ 29 (SC),  it was observed by the Apex Court as under :-

“8.     It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown.  The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing.  In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it.  If the complaint is bared by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

8.                           No doubt, in State Bank of India’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 24A Act. It may be stated here, that as per Section 15 of the Act, an appeal, against the order of the District Forum, could be filed within a period of thirty days, from the date of order.  However, a proviso has been engrafted, to the same, that appeal can be entertained even after the period of thirty days, if sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay.  In the instant case, the delay in filing the appeal was about three months and 23 days, more than the normal period of filing the same. The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid cases, is equally applicable to the instant case.  Since the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, the application deserves to be dismissed.

9.                           For the reasons recorded above, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 113 days, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by time.

10.                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

3^rd May, 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER