State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Air India Limited vs Vivek Das(Acharya) on 28 July, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 28.07.2010 FIRST APPEAL NO.2010/205 (Arising out of Order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum( New Delhi) Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.457/2004) The Reservation Manager, .. Appellant/Opposite Party Air India Limited, through Mr. Vikas Soni, 1, Scindia House, advocate. Janpath, New Delhi. Versus 1. Sh. Vivek Das(Acharya) . Respondent/Complainant. Kabir Pants Pramikh, through Mr. Vibhakar Mishra Mul Gaddi, Kair Chaura, advocate. Varanasi. At Present Organizer Shri Sadguru Kabir Mandir Plot No.25, LSC at Madangir, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Sharp Travels Pvt. Ltd., Through Mr. Vishal Saxena, Through its M.D. , advocate. 111-113, Somdutt Chambers, -II, 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. 3. M/s. Erco Travels Pvt. Ltd., Through its M.D. 252, 1st Floor, Sant Nagar, New Delhi. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Sh. M.L. Sahni Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi , President(ORAL)
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the applicant/appellant. According to the applicant Air India Limited himself there is a delay of 417 days, which is too long a period.
2. The reason for condonation of delay may be enumerated in own words of the appellant as given in the application:
2(i) That it is respectfully submitted that despite best efforts the applicant/appellant is not able to ascertain the exact date on which the impugned order dated 12.12.2008 was served, if at all upon the applicant/appellant. This application for condonation, therefore, seeks condonation of delay for the entire period commencing from the expiry of the 30 days period of the impugned order i.e. 12.12.2008.
ii) That the office of the applicant/appellant as mentioned in the original complaint and the impugned order dated 12.12.2008 was Scindia House, Janpath, Delhi. It is respectfully submitted that the said office of the applicant/appellant shifted to Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi near about 31.07.2009. The impugned order dated 12.12.2008 if at all would have been served around the period and perhaps due to whole exercise of shifting the office, may have got misplaced and not recorded in the record of the applicant/appellant.
iii) That it is submitted that the applicant/appellant came to know of the impugned order only upon receiving the summons/notice from the Honble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, K.G. Marg, Barracks on 21.01.2010. It is pertinent to mention herein that the notice/summons of the Execution Petition was received at Safdarjung Airport, office. Immediately upon receipt, the same was forwarded to Mr. J.K. Sood, Manager Admn. at Palam Airport for early action.
iv) That the concerned official of the Appellant i.e. Mr. J.K. Sood, Manager-Admn. due to his illness was not coming to office and after getting well he requested their panel advocates to get a certified copy from the Honble District Forum.
v) That the counsel for the applicant/appellant applied to the District Forum for fresh certified copy of the impugned order and the same was received on 17.02.2010.
vi) That upon receipt of the order, in view of the huge amount, the aforesaid order was forwarded to the advocates of the appellant for their opinion.
vii) That the opinion in this matter from the concerned advocates was received on 27.02.2010 and after their opinion this matter alongwith the opinion was forwarded to appellant/appellants Head office at Mumbai where the decision for filing the petition before this Honble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was taken in consultation with Delhi based advocate.
viii) That after due deliberation, it was decided by the legal department of the appellants to prefer the appeal.
ix) That the counsel for the appellant prepared the accompanying appeal and the same was sent to the official of the appellant for approval and signature.
x) That being the public sector, the official of the appellants also have to seek approval from higher authorities for preparing the FDR of the amount of Rs.25,000/- for filing the accompanying appeal.
3. The first ground in the application for condonation of delay is that the appellant is not able to ascertain the exact date on which the impugned order was served on him. The appellant for that should thank himself and none can assist him in this regard. The other ground is that during the pendency of the complaint and till its decision on 12.12.2008, the address of the appellant was 1, Scindia House, Janpath, New Delhi, but as subsequently office of OP (appellant) was shifted around 31.07.23009 to Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi, if the order would have been served, it may have got misplaced, and the OP company came to know about the judgment on 21.01.2010 when the notice of execution was received by them.
4. This contention is not correct. It will appear from the copy of the notice(Annexure A) of the execution case, available on the record of appeal, that it contained Scindia House as the address of the OP, and the notice was served on the appellant on Scindia House address. Secondly the case was contested before the District Forum and the appellant could have known about the progress in the case, he kept himself blissfully unaware of the proceedings and cannot now claim exemption from limitation. The contention of the appellant that, he became aware of the judgment when notice of execution case was received by them is wholly unacceptable. The other ground adumbrated by the appellant that since their office had shifted to another building, and in the course the copy sent by the Forum was misplaced and that Sh. Sood looking after the matter got ill and when he resumed the office he asked the counsel to obtain another certified copy, is again a sterile a ground, as the earlier one. No illness certificate of Sh. Sood has been filed. If the company shifted its office and mismanaged the things, it has to bear the responsibility for the same, and cannot take advantage of such circumstances claiming condonation of delay.
5. The last ground that after the certified copy was received on 17.02.2010, it was sent for legal opinion to the counsel who gave his opinion on 27.02.2010, which was then forwarded to Head office at Mumbai for taking a decision for filing the appeal, which instructed the counsel to prepare the appeal and the delay occurred. What happens in the office of the appellant and how the things move on, will not provide any ground for condonation of delay.
6. The law requires that one who seeks condonation of delay should explain each day delay, which the appellant has not explained.
7. We therefore find no sufficient justifiable ground for condoning delay. The application for condonation of delay is therefore dismissed, in consequence whereof the appeal stands dismissed being time barred.
8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
Announced on 28th day of July, 2010.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member Tri