State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
North Zone Bank Staff vs Corporation Bank on 26 February, 2014
FIRST ADDITONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Appl. No.2296 of 2013
In/and
First Appeal No.1344 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 06.12.2013.
Date of Decision: 26.02.2014.
North Zone Bank Staff, Co-op. (S.E.) Thrift and Credit Society Limited,
through Sewa Ram, its Authorized Committee Member, Hoshiarpur.
....Applicant/Appellant.
Versus
1. Corporation Bank, Court Road, Hoshiarpur, through its Branch
Manager.
2. The Zonal Manager, Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, Dashmesh
Complex, New Lajpat Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.
....Respondents.
Application for condonation of delay of
218 days
In/And
First Appeal No.1344 of 2013 against the
order dated 20.03.2013 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Hoshiarpur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:- Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for the applicant/appellant.
Sh. C.K. Jha, Advocate, counsel for the respondents. Misc. Appl. No.2296 of 2013 2 In/and First Appeal No.1344 of 2013 INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
North Zone Bank Staff, applicant/appellant (In short, "the applicant") has filed this application for condonation of delay of 218 days in filing the present appeal.
2. It was submitted by the applicant that the appeal is likely to succeed and the grounds of appeal may be read as part of the application. The applicant society is a poor society, having very limited sources of income. After the passing of the order by the District Forum, it was advised that the appeal for enhancement can be filed after receipt of compensation amount, but despite filing of the execution, the respondent bank has not made the payment of compensation.
3. The applicant was in process of taking further action, but in the meantime, came to know about filing of the appeal by the respondent bank against the impugned order and thereafter, the applicant decided to appear and immediately filed the appeal without any further delay. The cross appeal i.e. F.A. No.590 of 2013 was pending for 15.01.2014 and the applicant put in appearance on 22.08.2013.
4. The applicant, after arranging funds, immediately filed the appeal for enhancement and the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but was due to the aforesaid reasons. It was prayed that the delay of 218 days in filing the appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, preliminary objections were raised that neither sufficient ground, nor proper explanation has been given in the application for condoning the delay. Misc. Appl. No.2296 of 2013 3
In/and First Appeal No.1344 of 2013 The applicant is estopped by its own act and conduct from filing the appeal. The appeal is hopelessly time barred and the delay in filing the appeal is intentional and deliberate.
6. On merits, it was denied that the applicant society is a poor society, having limited sources of income. Filing of execution is a matter of record, but the respondent bank has already filed the appeal on 23.05.2013 and half of the awarded amount has been deposited with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal. The applicant filed the execution application No.37/2013 which was fixed for 07.06.2013 on which date, counsel for the respondents appeared before the executing court and intimated about the pendency of the appeal and he was directed to produce stay order and the case was adjourned for 17.06.2013. The stay was granted by this Commission on 05.07.2013. Similar other pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying other pleas taken in the application, it was prayed that the application may be dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
8. The grounds taken for condonation of delay are that the applicant was advised that appeal for enhancement can be filed after receipt of compensation amount and despite filing of execution, the respondents have not made the payment of compensation. The applicant came to know about filing of appeal by the respondent bank against the impugned order and the applicant appeared in that appeal on 22.08.2013 thereafter, the applicant immediately filed the appeal.
9. The pleas of the applicant are not tenable, at all. It is not disclosed as to when and who advised the applicant that the appeal Misc. Appl. No.2296 of 2013 4 In/and First Appeal No.1344 of 2013 for enhancement is to be filed after receipt of compensation. Even otherwise, as per the settled law, the ignorance of law is no ground for condonation of delay. Applicant itself mentioned in the application that on coming to know about filing of appeal by the respondents, the applicant put in appearance in the said appeal on 22.08.2013 and thereafter immediately filed the appeal. This itself shows that the applicant earlier had no intention to file the appeal against the impugned order and it was only after coming to know about filing of appeal by the respondent that the applicant decided to file the appeal, just for the sake of filing the appeal. As per the respondents, they filed the appeal i.e. F.A. No.590 of 2013 on 23.05.2013 and the stay was granted by this Commission on 05.07.2013 and the counsel for the respondent intimated the executing court on 07.06.2013 about the filing of the appeal, but the applicant did not bother to file immediately even after 07.06.2013 and filed the present appeal on 06.12.2013 i.e. after about six months thereafter. After receipt of copy of the order on 02.04.2013, as per stamp affixed thereon, the applicant chose to file the execution application for making the compliance of the order passed by the District Forum and he had no intention to challenge the impugned order and filing of the present appeal is an afterthought, as discussed above in detail. The applicant is estopped by its own act and conduct from filing the present appeal which is hopelessly time barred, as there is huge delay of 218 days in filing the same. The application is vague and no details of day to day proceedings are given. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others", 2008(3) The Punjab Law Misc. Appl. No.2296 of 2013 5 In/and First Appeal No.1344 of 2013 Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-
"It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence".
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case "Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs. Vs State of A.P. & Others", 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para-26(relevant portion) observed as under:-
"Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly".
11. In a recent case "DLF Home Developers Limited & Ors. Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors.", 2013 (3) CLT-404 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission relying upon so many authorities, reproduced the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-17 and of the Hon'ble National Commission in Para-18 as follows:-
17. Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", IV (2011) CPJ-63 (NC) 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 Misc. Appl. No.2296 of 2013 6 In/and First Appeal No.1344 of 2013 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 the 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."
18. This Commission in Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs Vasankumar H. Khandelwal and Anr., Revision Petition ANo.1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012 has held:
"that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and in case of some expert evidence is required to be led, then within 150 days. The said Bench dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it was delayed by 104 days."
12. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, the application filed by the applicant for condonation of delay of 218 days in filing the present appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. Main Case
13. As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, the appeal i.e. F.A. No.1344 of 2013 also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. The arguments in the application were heard on 19.02.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member February 26, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)