Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/364/2018

Maruti Suzuki India Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sultan Singh s/o Maharaj Singh - Opp.Party(s)

P.D.Luthra

04 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 364/2018

 

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No. 1, Nelson Madela Road, Vasant Kunk, New Delhi through Dy.General Manager (Legal)

Vs.

Mr.Sultan Singh s/o Maharaj Singh, Infront of Radheyshyam Petrol Pump, G.T.Road, Dholpur & ors.

 

Date of Order 4.7.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. P.D.Luthra counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned

2

District Forum, Dholpur dated 6.10.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant. The appeal is filed with delay of 216 days hence, come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

 

The contention of the appellant is that certified copy of the order was received by the appellant only on 25.1.2018. At that time Legal Officer of the appellant company was travelling to Chandigarh hence, drafting of appeal was finalized only on 28.5.2018 and present appeal was filed on 11.6.2018 hence, the delay be condoned.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as documents submitted by the appellant.

 

It is an admitted case of the appellant that he received the notice for the hearing dated 21.4.2017 of the District Forum. Vakalatnama was also issued in the name of Mr.Shishir Saxena advocate but none appeared before the Forum below and order sheet dated 12.6.2017 reveals that

ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the

present appellant meaning thereby that inspite of

3

 

the service none appeared before the Forum below and appellants were having knowledge of the proceedings before the Forum below but they choose not to defend. Now the contention of the appellants in application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is that he received the certified copy on 25.1.2018. Be that may be the case the appeal is filed in June 2018 after delay of more than four months and no reason is assigned for the delay. Casually it has been said that legal officer was travelling at Chandigarh due to certain high stake litigation hence, the draft of appeal could be finalized only on 28.5.2018.

 

It is well settled that to condone the delay there must a sufficient cause and reliance could be placed on AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi where it has been held as under:

 

“ There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.”

4

 

Here in the present case facts of the case clearly shows that the appellants were negligent and guilty of inaction hence, the reason cannot be said sufficient.

 

Further reliance could be placed on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Post Master General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where it has been held as under:

 

“ It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies propmtly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.”

 

Further reliance could be placed on judgment passed by the Apex Court in Anshul Agarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2006) CPJ 63 (SC) where it has been held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the

5

 

Consumer Protection Act,1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are as under:

 

“ It is also opposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.”

 

Further reliance could be placed on 2009 (2) SCALE 108 R.B.Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

 

“ We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

6

 

Further reliance could be placed on IV (2016) CPJ 178 (NC) Reliance General Insurance Co. Vs. Shri Pariyojna Nirman Pvt.Ltd. where the National Commission has held as under:

 

“It is thus clear that the petitioner has made lame excuses. In view of the latest law prevailing in this country the petitioner should have been vigilant and prompt. Decisions of the higher authorities should have been sought in a jiffy. The expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be erased from section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting the excessive liberal approach which would defeat the purpose of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and C.P.Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a 'sufficient one' for the purpose of delay condonation. The officers of the insurance company should not sit over the documents they should decide the case immediately. For such a huge delay petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

 

In the light of above scanning of the present application clearly shows negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant. The appellant is a corporate company having legal office inspite of this no one appeared before the Forum below and even the appeal is filed with extra ordinary delay of 216

 

7

 

days. No sufficient reason has been shown.

 

In view of the above, the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act stands dismissed and so also the appeal.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm