Haryana

StateCommission

A/741/2015

GAWAR CONSTRUCTION LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP GOYAT

29 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      741 of 2015

Date of Institution:      08.09.2015

Date of Decision :       29.09.2015

 

M/s Gawar Construction Limited, DSS-378, Sector 16 & 17, Hisar, through its authorized person Parveen Rai Khundia.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, 18, Sirsa Road, Near Gurudwara, Hisar, through its Divisional Manager.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Sandeep Goyat, Advocate for appellant.   

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated July 25^th, 2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Hisar, whereby complaint filed by complainant was dismissed.

2.      There is delay of 1088 days in filing of the appeal the condonation of which has been sought by the appellant-complainant by moving an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The ground taken in the application for condonation of delay is as under:-

“2.     That the appellant is residing most of the times outside the city Hisar and the counsel who represented the appellant before the ld. District Forum did not inform the appellant about the decision rendered by the ld.Forum and ultimately when the appellant contacted his counsel to know about the status of his case, only then he came to know that ld. District Forum has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 25.7.2012. That thereafter the appellant contacted the undersigned for filing the present appeal and in this way, delay of    days in filing the present appeal has occurred.

3.      That the delay of 1102 days in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but due to the bonafide reasons explained above.”

3.      The ground taken by the appellant is vague and far from being satisfactory. It is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity.

4.      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.”

 

5.      Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012(2) CPC 3 (SC)–Anshul Aggarwal  Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority  observed as under:-

“It is also apposite 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”.

 

6.      In the instant case the delay is not of days or months but of about three years. Taking into account the ground taken in the application and the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 1088 days. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.

7.      Consequently, the appeal being barred by limitation is dismissed.

Announced: 29.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL