Punjab

StateCommission

A/1409/2014

Hans Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

State of Punjab - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Arya

02 Feb 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

Miscellaneous Application No. 2167 of 2014

in/and

First Appeal No.   1409 of 2014

                                                           

                                    Date of institution:17.10.2014

                             Date of Decision:     2.2.2015

 

 

Hans Raj S/o Bhukhu Ram R/o Sant Nagar, Near Advait Ashram, Dinanagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

…..Applicant/Appellant/Complainant

 

                                      Versus

 

1. Punjab State through Collector, Gurdaspur.
2. The Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. Punjab National Bank, Branch G.T. Road, Gurdaspur through its Branch Manager.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

Misc. Application for condonation of delay.

                             and

First Appeal against the order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. S.S. Kainth, Advocate

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No. 141 dated 9.5.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed. 

Misc. Application No. 2167 of 2014

2.                Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay. It has been stated that the appellant had a bonafide belief to challenge the order within 90 days and was not in the knowledge that limitation period is 30 days, therefore, there is delay of 69 days. It was requested that the delay may kindly be condoned.

3.                Under the law a limitation period has been prescribed as 30 days. In case there is a delay in filing the appeal within the said period then an application can be filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating the sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The ignorance of law is not a ground. No other ground has been set-up by the complainant to be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in case “Jagmal Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Others, 2009(2) RCR (Civil)-349 (P&H)” that:-

            “Proof of sufficient cause is condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay ………….”.

4.                It is settled position that ignorance of limitation period is not a sufficient reason to condone the delay. It is held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case “National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ajmer Singh Kushwaha”, I (2012) CPJ 302 (NC) in para No. 3(relevant portion) observed as follows:-

“…Even if we agree with the version of the petitioner and count the limitation from the date of the clarificatory order of the State Commission passed on 27.9.2010 which was, according to petitioner’s own admission, received by the petitioner Company on 11.10.2010 still there is delay in filing the revision petition since the period of only 90 days is available for filing the revision petition under the law. While we are quite conscious of the fact that the Courts have to adopt a liberal and pragmatic rather than pedantic approach while construing the reasons for delay, the fact remains that the petitioner, on his part, has to explain each day’s delay with justification for that delay. In the present case, the petitioner and learned Counsel have not only failed to offer any convincing and satisfactory reasons for the delay, it appears from the submissions made before us that the petitioner has taken the condonation for granted by eating it as a mere formality. It must be appreciated that filing of revision petition within the prescribed period is the requirement under the law and unless there are adequate and convincing reasons for the delay, the same cannot be condoned. Since, we are not at all convinced with the vague and general submissions made by the petitioner in support of the delay in question, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation.”

5.                It was also held by the Hon’ble National Commission in “M/s Arihant Builders & Ors. Versus  Gaurav Anand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.”, 2012(4) CPR 487 (NC) that it was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Victor Albuquerque v. Saraswat Co-operation Bank Ltd.”, AIR 1988 (Bom.) 346 that:-

“where the facts showing clear negligence of party during entire period of limitation and no sufficient cause sustained for delay in filing appeal, the delay cannot be condoned.”

 

6.                In view of the above position, we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay, therefore, we do not see any merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed.

MAIN CASE

7.                Appeal is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.

8.                The arguments in the application for condonation of delay were heard on 29.1.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

  (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                         

February 2, 2015.                                                        (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                Member