Haryana

StateCommission

A/696/2016

RAGHUBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.S.ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

NARESH KUMAR GANGA

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    696 of 2016

Date of Institution:    28.07.2016   

Date of Decision :     22.08.2016 

 

Raghubir Singh s/o Sh. Hari Singh, Resident of House No.1718, Hargobindpura Colony, Barara, Ambala, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 1.     T.S. Enterprises, Gurudwara Guru Tej Bhadur Gali, Rajoli Road, Barara, Ambala, Haryana.

2.      Kent RO Systems Limited A-2, Sector-59, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201309.

3.      Kent RO Systems Limited Plot between Plot No.8, 9 & 12, Ram Nagar, Industrial Area, Roorkee, District Haridwar, Uttrakhand-247667, India.

                             Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Naresh Kumar Ganga, Advocate for appellant.   

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Raghubir Singh-complainant (appellant herein) alleged that he had purchased a Water Purifier (Kent) from the opposite parties which was found defective. The opposite parties being approached did not repair or replace the same. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                On September 5^th, 2013 none appeared on behalf of the appellant-complainant and the complaint was dismissed in default.

3.                The appellant-complainant has filed the instant appeal before this Commission alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, which is of 1023.

4.                The grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay are as under:-

“1.     That the applicant-appellant is filing the accompanying appeal in this Hon’ble Court and are sanguine about its success on the basis of grounds taken therein and same may be read as part of the present application.

2.      That order dated 05.09.2013 passed by the Ld. Consumer form was delivered to the appellant on 18.09.2013. The appellant/complainant was under impression that now there is no remedy against the order dated 05.09.2013 and also during this period the appellant was not well and was under depression, but now when the appellant discussed his matter with the undersigned then he came to know that against the order dated 05.09.2013 appeal was to be filed but till then huge delay has occurred and has engaged the counsel and thus delay in filing the appeal has occurred.”

5.                While dealing with the prayer for condonation of delay, 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.”

6.                In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

7.                In this case, the appellant has taken casual approach and have not proved to be a prudent litigant. Ignorance of law is not an excuse to seek condonation of delay. The plea taken by the appellant is not believable because the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. A valuable right which has accrued to the respondents-opposite parties cannot be thrown away in a casual manner. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for condonation of delay of 1023 days in filing of the appeal is made out. 

8.                Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.          Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced: 22.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL