STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                               U.T., CHANDIGARH 

1. M/s Ingram Micro India Ltd., SCO 60, 2nd Floor, Sector 47C, Chandigarh through its Branch Head.

2.     M/s Ingram Micro India Ltd., Godrej IT Park, B-Block, 5th Floor, Pirojshanagar,        Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079, through its Managing Director

                                                                                                                …Appellants

                                         V e r s u s

St. Kabir Public School, Sector 26, Chandigarh c/o Kabir Educational Society, through its Administrator Sh. Gurpreet Bakshi.

                                                                                         ...Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection   Act, 1986  against   order dated 28.11.2017 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.4/2016

Argued by:    Mr.Ramandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants

 BEFORE:      JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.                                                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                     Appellants/Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 have filed this appeal against order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), wherein alongwith Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, liability was fastened upon the appellants for rendering deficient service. 

2.                 The appeal  is barred by limitation of 227 days (as per office 225 days). An application has been moved to condone the delay. Averment therein seeking condonation of delay, reads thus; ;  

“That on 28.5.2018 the appellants searched the status of case through internet at website “confonet” and then the appellants came to know that the Ld. Forum had already passed the order against the appellants.  The appellants immediately got the computer generated copy of order and approached the counsel and after discussing with the counsel the appellants came to know that there is delay of 227 days in filing the present appeal.”

3..               It is specifically  stated that passing of the order on 28.11.2017 was not in the notice of the OPs. The OPs searched the website on “Confonet” on 28.5.2018 and the order came to their notice. Thereafter time was spent in discussion and appeal was filed on 30.8.2018.

4.              Record of the Forum is available with us. We have perused it. As per office note, certified copy of the order was sent to the appellants/OPs through registered post on 12.12.2017. The envelope containing the letter alongwith certified copy of the order has not been returned by the postal authorities. The above fact clearly shows that as per legal presumption, said letter/envelope shall be deemed to have served. Address on the letter/envelope was mentioned as given in the complaint and also mentioned in this appeal. In view of the above, it can be said that the plea of coming to know about the order passed on 28.5.2018 appears to be false.  In the application, no detail has been given as to why further delay was caused after 28.5.2018 and the appeal was filed after about 3 months.  To condone the delay, sufficient reason has not been given.     

5.                No doubt, the Courts are very lenient in condoning the delay.  However, in cases, where no sufficient cause is offered, such a compassion cannot be shown in favour of a litigant.   The Hon’ble  Supreme court in  Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, V(2010) SLT 790-III, (2010) CLT 201 (SC),  observed as under:-

“The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its  power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.”

 In  Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013 the Hon’ble  Supreme  Court upheld the order of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission  refusing to condone the delay of even 13 days.

6..           In the instant case, as no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 227 days(as per office 225 days), in filing the appeal, the application, thus, stands dismissed. Consequently, appeal also fails, and the same is dismissed.

7.                  Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

8.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after comliance.