Delhi

StateCommission

A/487/2017

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

V. VIJAY KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN K SHARMA

24 Sep 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:24.09.2018

First Appeal No. 487/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 03.04.2014passed in complaint case No. 639/2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, VikasBhawan, New Delhi-110001)

In the matter of:

Ministry of Railways,

Through Divisional Commercial Manger (Claim),

D.R.M. Office,

New Delhi                                                                     ….......Appellant

 

Versus

 

      V. Vijay Kumar,

                M-67A, Mausam Complex,

                Lodhi Colony,

                New Delhi.                                                                  ........Respondent

                                                                  

                                                                  

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       PRESIDENT

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       MEMBER

 

1.             Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                              Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                    Yes

 

 

SALMA NOOR            -           MEMBER

 

  1.           Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block,VikasBhawan, New Delhi in CC No.639/2013.
  2.           Alongwith appeal the appellant/OP has filed an application for condonation of delay. The number of days has been left blank. We have seen the impugned order which has been challenged in this appeal. The same is dated 03.04.2014 and appeal is filed on 03.08.2017. There is a delay of more than three years in filing the present appeal.
  3.           We have issued notice to the respondent/complainant on this application who appeared and strongly opposed the application by filing reply.
  4.           The ground on which the appellant/OP wants delay to be condoned reads as under:

“That it is respectfully submitted that no notice was ever served on the OP/appellant herein. Address given in the Memo of Parties is also incorrect. The copy of Cross Appeal was unofficially handed over to Inspector (Legal) in the Court on 17.08.2015. It took some time to verify it from record. No notice or complaint No.639/13 was ever served. Thereafter the certified copy of the entire record was applied for by our counsel and we came to know that the original record has been transferred from Delhi Forum to State Commission which took time in searching of record. Thereafter certified copies of entire record were applied and steps were taken to file the present appeal. It is respectfully submitted that it took some time and further to take permission from higher authorities and to file the present appeal.

That there is no intentional delay and sincere efforts were made to file the appeal as early as possible. Time was taken in obtaining the certified copy of entire record and to file the appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice.”

 

  1.           It is pertinent to mention here that the said impugned order was challenged by the respondent/complainant by filing FA No. 556/14 which has been decided by this commission on 24.05.2017. The said appeal was contested by the appellant/OP and the Ld. Counsel appearing in the present appeal had appeared before us in the said appeal. The same plea was taken by the counsel for appellant/OP in the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant that, the order passed by the Ld. District Forum was an ex-parte order and appellant/OP was not served in the matter.
  2.           While passing the order in the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant (FA No.556/14) this commission has considered the plea taken by the appellant/OP and observed as under:-

“To verify the contention of the respondent/OP, we have requisitioned the District Forum record. Order of the Ld. District Forum vide which the respondent/OP proceeded ex-parte reads as under:

 

  1.  

Pr. Complainant.

None for OP.

Notice issued to OP and proof of service is on record. Case called out several times till 3 P.M. None appeared on behalf of OP.

OP is proceeded ex-parte.

Fix 25.2.14 for ex-parte evidence by compl.”

 

          We have gone through the District Forum record. It is evident from the record that notice upon respondent/OP was duly served. Acknowledgement card of registered envelop is also annexed in the District Forum record which shows that the notice was served upon respondent/OP on 02.12.2013 and wherein the next date is also mentioned as 18.12.2013. Hence, the contention of the respondent/OP that it was not served before the Ld. District Forum is without any substance. Further, the respondent/OP has not filed any appeal before this commission challenging the impugned order. The respondent/OP was given opportunity to contest the case before the Ld. District Forum and it is respondent/OP who has not availed the opportunity for the reasons best known to it.”

 

  1.           In view of the above findings in the earlier order passed by this commission it is very much clear that appellant/OP was having full knowledge of the order passed in the CC No.639/2014and had purposely not filed the appeal, for reasonbest known to it. It is also necessary to mention here that the present appeal is filed by the same counsel Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma who had appeared before us in the earlier appeal filed by the respondent/complainant i.e. FA No.556/14. The said appeal was for enhancement of compensation which was dismissed on 24.05.2017. Even thereafter appellant/OP has taken 2 months and 9 days for filing the present appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is deliberate and intentional and to harass respondent/complainant. An important right has already accrued in favor of respondent/complainant. The appellant/OP deliberately wants to defeat the said right. 
  2.           In the circumstances we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
  3.           Application is dismissed withcosts of Rs.5,000/- for wasting the valuable time of this commission.
  4.  As the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
  5. A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. File of the District Forum will also sent back forthwith.

                   File be consigned to record room.     

 

                                                                                                                                                (Justice VeenaBirbal)

  President

 

 

                                                                                                                                                             (Salma Noor)

                                                                        Member

            

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.