Haryana

StateCommission

A/1005/2017

HSIIDC - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSHIL JINDAL - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

30 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

         

First Appeal No.       1005 of 2017

Date of Institution:       21.08.2017

Date of Decision:         30.04.2018

 

 

1.      Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Kundli, District Sonepat through its head of Division (Estate), HSIIDC, C-13 & 14, Sector 6, Panchkula.

 

2.      Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, C-13 & C-14, Sector 6, Panchkula.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Sushil Jindal age 28 years son of Shri Sita Ram Jindal, resident of House No.115, Sector 16 & 17, Hisar, District Hisar.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

 

Argued by:   Shri B.S. Negi, Advocate for the appellants

                     Shri Rishab Lohan, Advocate for the respondent

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

         Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited-opposite parties (for short ‘HSIIDC’) is in appeal against the order dated February 27^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby it directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.2,47,500/- from the date it became due till realization to Sushil Jindal-complainant.

2.      The appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 129 days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken in the application is as under:-

          “2.     That due to the administrative process for obtaining opinion for filing appeal and seeking sanction from higher authorities delay of 129 days have been occurred in filing the present appeal.”  

3.      Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellants.

4.      This Commission has considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. The explanation for the delay caused in filing of the appeal is vague and far from being satisfactory.

5.      A 30 days period has been prescribed in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’), for filing appeal against the order of the District Forum. However, the proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, because it would vary per facts and circumstances of each particular case.

6.      By now it is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly. Similar view dovetails from the following authoritative pronouncements:-

7.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

8.      In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 414 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the “sufficient cause” for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay. Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.

9.      In Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors versus Janak Singh & anr, IV(2014) CPJ 36 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as under:-

“8.      In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

“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.”

10.        In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

11.    The grounds taken in the application are a sad commentary on the working of the employees of the appellants and these grounds are manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency.  To accept such grounds as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance.  So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 129 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

12.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on the ground of limitation.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 30.04.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK