State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kone Elevator India Private Limited & ... vs Shri Krishna Building, Registered ... on 12 December, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/13/393
Instituted on : 14.06.2013
1. Kone Elevator India Private Limited,
Address - 50, Banagaram Road, Ayanabakkam,
Chennai - 600095
2. Kone Elevator India Private Limited,
Address - 359 - B, Ground Floor,
Behind Dutta Drycleaners, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.)
Present Address : Fourth floor, Pujari Campus,
Pachpedi Naka, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.) ... Appellants
Vs.
Shri Krishna Building, Registered partnership firm,
Through : Sunil Kumar Tapadia (Partner),
S/o Sureshchandra Maheshwari,
Address - Nemichand Gali, Ramsagarpara,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Anurag Thaker, for appellants.
Shri Rahul Shrivastava, for respondent.
ORDER
DATED : 12/12/2013 This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.341/2010, whereby complaint of the respondent /complainant, has been partly allowed.
// 2 //
2. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
3. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under :-
"24A Limitation of period - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records the reasons for condoning such delay."
The above provision is clearly peremptory in nature requiring the Consumer Forum to see at the time entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of accruing cause of action or not.
4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy & anr, decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus ;
// 3 // "8. In Ram Lal & others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :-
It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.".
9. In R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed thus ;
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. Hon'ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of // 4 // delay in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under ;
We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.
11. Now, Apex Court in Anshul Agrawal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed ;
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."
// 5 //
5. In application filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, the cause of delay of 97 days in filing the appeal, is mentioned that the Shri S.K. Shrivas, Advocate has not given information regarding passing of the impugned order dated 06/02/2013 to the appellants and for this reason they were not having any knowledge regarding the passing of the impugned order. Appellants could come to know regarding the impugned order when appellant no.1 at Chennai received notice dated 03.06.2013 of the Execution Case No.46/2013 and its information has been given to appellant no.2 at Raipur. Thereafter appellant no.2 contacted it's counsel Shri S.K. Shrivas, then only he could know regarding the passing of the impugned order. On 05/06/2013, the appellant no.2 received entire file of the case along with certified copy of the impugned order from his previous counsel. The appellants filed the instant appeal on 14.06.2013 before this Commission.
6. Shri Anurag Thaker, learned counsel for the appellants/OPs prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the basis of above mentioned grounds and he seeks an opportunity to argue the matter on merits.
7. On the other hand, Shri Rahul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent /complainant opposed the application for condonation of delay and prayed to reject the same.
// 6 //
8. On bare perusal of record of the District Forum and affidavit filed by Shri Shamim Khan, who is Installation Engineer of the appellant no.2, in support of the application for condonation of delay before this Commission, it appears that the reason assigned by the appellants / OPs regarding delay in filing the appeal, is not satisfactory and delay has not been explained properly.
9. The appeal is barred by limitation by 97 days, which is inordinate delay. Thus, on the facts of the case, the appeal filed by the appellants, is barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellants in application filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the application, no sufficient ground has been mentioned for condoning the delay in filing the appeal beyond the limitation, therefore, the appeal is hopelessly barred by time.
10. Thus, this application is liable to be dismissed, hence is hereby dismissed. Consequently the appeal also stands dismissed.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/12/2013 /12/2013