State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdb Financial Services Ltd. vs Atul Jindal on 12 January, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 02 / 2016
HDB Financial Services Limited
having its Registered Office at
2nd Floor, Process House, Kamala Mills
Senapati Bagpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai through
Sh. Gagan Deep Saini aged about 38 years S/o Sh. Ishwar Dayal Saini
M/s HDBFS Ltd. having its Registered Office at
2nd Floor, Process House, Kamala Mills
Senapati Bagpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai (Manager - Collection)
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Atul Jindal S/o late Sh. R.K. Jindal
R/o 312, Vivek Vihar
Ranipur More, Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Vikrant Gambhir, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 12/01/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 591 of 2014. The appeal has been preferred with a delay of 199 days' and for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay (Paper No. 1) supported with an affidavit of Sh. Gagan Deep Saini, Manager - Collection (Paper Nos. 2 to 5).2
2. In the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that the District Forum has decided the consumer complaint vide judgment and order dated 21.05.2015, which came to the knowledge of the officials of the Haridwar branch of the appellant only on 18.11.2015, when the Amin from Tehsil, Haridwar came with recovery certificate issued by the District Forum in execution application No. 73 of 2015 for recovery of sum of Rs. 26,019.76/- in the said execution application. The concerned official of the Haridwar branch of the appellant intimated the same to the higher officials at the company's Head Office situated at Mumbai. The Legal Department of the appellant suggested to engage a lawyer at Dehradun and on 25.11.2015, the deponent contacted Sh. Vikrant Gambhir, Advocate at Dehradun and discussed the matter with him and the counsel advised the deponent to collect the necessary documents of the case as well as certified copy of the impugned order, complete order-sheet, consumer complaint, affidavit, annexures, execution application along with the order-sheet and thereafter only, necessary advice can be given for further action in the matter. On 26.11.2015, the deponent applied through counsel for the issuance of the above-mentioned certified copies and the same were received on 26.11.2015. Sh. Deepak Bhatnagar, Advocate also intimated the deponent that he had already given the certified copy of the impugned order earlier to Sh. Iqbal Singh, Branch Manager in the month of August, 2015. The deponent intimated the said fact to the higher officials of the company and after inquiry, it transpired that the Branch Manager, who got the certified copy of the impugned order issued, was under resignation period and left the job without intimating the company about the impugned order. After collecting the required documents, the deponent contacted the counsel, who after perusing the documents, suggested to file an appeal against the impugned order and also advised that a demand draft of 3 Rs. 13,010/- is also to be submitted along with the appeal. While perusing the documents, the certified copy of the impugned order went missing and the same was applied on 11.12.2015, which was issued the same day and thereafter the same was provided to the counsel. Since the case was old and hence the same was closed at appellant's end in the books and it took time to arrange the agreement and other documents pertaining to the case. The deponent got the demand draft prepared and the appeal was filed. Since there is 49 days' delay in filing the appeal from the date of knowledge of the impugned order, i.e., 18.11.2015. The delay in filing the appeal is bonafide. On these grounds, the delay in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned.
3. The respondent - complainant filed objections dated 02.03.2016 against the delay condonation application (Paper Nos. 56 to 58), stating therein that no sufficient cause or reason has been shown by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal; that the notice of the consumer complaint by registered post was issued by the District Forum to the Manager, HDB Financial Services Limited, Haridwar (opposite party to the consumer complaint) on 14.11.2014, which was duly served; that nobody turned upon before the District Forum on behalf of the opposite party even after expiry of 30 days' from the date of issuance of notice; that no written statement was filed by the appellant before the District Forum and vide order dated 11.02.2015, the District Forum held the service upon the appellant as sufficient and proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellant and decided the same per impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2015; that the respondent - complainant had filed execution application for compliance of the order, notice whereof was sent to the appellant by registered post, but inspite of sufficient service, the appellant did not appear even in the execution 4 application; that in para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the appellant has admitted that the certified copy of the impugned order was earlier delivered by Sh. Deepak Bhatnagar, Advocate to the Branch Manager, Haridwar of the appellant in the month of August, 2015; that in Paper No. 48, the appellant has shown at Sh. Iqbal Singh working as Branch Manager, Haridwar of the company from 24.11.2014 to 07.09.2015; that the appellant had the knowledge of the consumer complaint since August, 2015; that no day-to-day explanation for delay in filing the appeal has been extended by the appellant; that the appeal has been filed with a huge delay; that the delay in filing the appeal is not liable to be condoned and that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is liable to be rejected.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and perused the record.
5. Even if it is assumed that the appellant had no knowledge regarding filing of the consumer complaint filed by the respondent - complainant before the District Forum and pendency thereof as well as the impugned order passed by the District Forum in the said consumer complaint, then also, as per the own case of the appellant, the certified copy of the impugned order was delivered by Sh. Deepak Bhatnagar, Advocate to the Branch Manager, Haridwar of the appellant in the month of August, 2015, who, at that time, was under
the employment and service of the appellant and his services came to an end on 07.09.2015 and he was relieved from the services of the appellant vide letter dated 10.11.2015, copy whereof is Paper No. 48 on record.5
6. The present appeal came to be filed before this Commission on 06.01.2016 and if the employee of the appellant had not acted bonafidely and did not communicate the impugned order to the higher officials of the company, the appellant being the employer, has to bear the consequences for the same. Even otherwise, the stand taken by the appellant that Sh. Iqbal Singh, the then Branch Manager of the company left the job without intimating the company about the impugned order, appears to be incorrect and false, in view of the fact that in para 8 of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, the appellant has stated that while perusing the documents, the certified copy of the impugned order went missing and, as such, the certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 11.12.2015, which was issued the same day. When Sh. Iqbal Singh, the then Branch Manager did not intimate the company about the impugned order and did not forward the same to the company, then it is not understood as to how the certified copy of the impugned order went missing in the office of the company.
7. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of HUDA Vs. Sunil Gupta; IV (2012) CPJ 360 (NC), has declined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. In the said case, the delay of 36 days' in filing the revision petition was not condoned and it was held that the procedural delay is not the sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Vishnu Chand Sharma; IV (2012) CPJ 676 (NC), has held that the only explanation that file was moved from table to table to get permission to file petition is not sufficient and the delay of 169 days' in filing the revision petition was not condoned.
8. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Jain International Sansthan Vs. Krish City, Bhiwadi and others; III 6 (2016) CPJ 2 (NC), has declined to condone the delay of 168 days' in filing the revision petition and has held that no lucid excuse is forthcoming from the petitioner to justify the delay in filing the revision petition. It was held that the case is barred by time. In the said decision, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013; Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, decided on 17.12.2013, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the order of the Hon'ble National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days'.
9. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain / justify such a long and inordinate delay of 199 days' in filing the appeal and we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal is not liable to be condoned and the application for condonation of delay warrants rejection.
10. Application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K