STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Andaman And Nicobar Administration
Port Blair
AC No. 8 of 2005
The Sr. Vice President,
United Trust of India
Investor Service Ltd.,
Mumbai
The Vice President
United Trust of India, Investor Services Ltd.
KolKata Appellant
- Versus
Shri. Harish Kumar,
Port Blair
Respondent
Present:
1. Justices S.N Bhattacharjee. President, State Commission.
2. Shri Bimal Behari Chakarvarty, Member, State Commission.
3. Smti Vijay Laxmi, Member, State Commission.
Date 24/8/06
JUDGMENT
Other side is absent. The Appellant is resent. The Respondent is absent. Ld Advocate for the Appellant moves the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Before disposing of this application it Will be convenient for appreciation to state the relevant dates.
1 The suit was disposed of by the Forum below on 25.10.2004
The following dates or period may be available from the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act:
i. Date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment from District Forum when
the order was passed: 25.10.2004
ii. The copy of the said order was sent to Advocate at Calcutta by Courier service on that date.
iii. The date of reaching the letter to the Advocate November 2004
iv. UTI Office sent the order to Mumbai Head Office of UTI for Ministry ‘s approval -2 months time taken in the Ministry.
v. Sending letter to the Panel Counsel for legal opinion — Ail 2005 and decision was received to File appeal
vi. Because of summer vacation in the Courts at Port Blair from 15/4/2005 to 15/5/2005 Lawyer was not available from 15th April till 1st June 2005.
vii. Departments letter to their Advocate for filing appeal - first week of June 2005.
viii. Draft has been sent to Port Blair Advocate - 30th June 2005.
ix. The draft copy sent by Central Counsel to the UTI for vetting - first week of july 2005.
x. The appeal was filed on 11/11/05.
xi. July to November the delay has not been explained.
2. So there was delay for more than one year in filing the appeal. Although the period fixed for appeal is 30 days, the Ld. Lawyer for the Appellant relies upon a ruling reported in Supreme Courts (1996) 10 SCC page 634 in which Their Lordship’s ruled that Government should not be insisted upon to explain every day’s delay. Applying this decision of the Supreme Court to the present case the Appellant United Trust of India wants to go further by way of relaxation of the decision of Supreme Court. The Ld Counsel submits that the delay in preferring appeal in the present case requires explanation month by month and not day by day. If day by day delay can be condoned, why the delay month by month shall not be condoned. But, we are not inclined to accept such a judgment as being relevant to the particular case. Under the Limitation Act it was decided long ago that delay should be explained day by day and in such a case, the Supreme Court excluded the Government from such rigours of law for reasons state in the judgment. Their Lordships never held that delay month by month caused by Government or by such institution as the Appellant should be condoned or strict explanation should not he insisted upon for condoning such delay. Accordingly, the inordinate delay caused by the appellant in preferring appeal could not be condoned by us. So the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay is rejected. Appeal not admitted.
