State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sahara Service Limited vs Swaran Singh on 17 May, 2013
FIRST ADDITONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Appl. No.627 of 2012
In/and
First Appeal No.373 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 27.03.2012.
Date of Decision: 17.05.2013.
1. Sahara Service Limited, Registered Office at Shara India Bhawan, 1,
Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow.
2. Sahara Service Limited, Regional Officer/Branch Manager, near
Inderjit Juice Bar, Ram Ganj, Moga, Tehsil and Distt. Moga
.
3. Sahara Service Limited, Corporate Office at DLF, Infinity Tower, "A",
2nd Floor, DLF-II, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana-122001.
.....Applicants/Appellants.
Versus
Swaran Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh, R/o Ward No.9, House No.290, Nanak
Nagri, Old NCC Street, Moga, Tehsil and Distt. Moga.
...Respondent.
Application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 137 days
In/And
First Appeal No.373 of 2012 against the
order dated 12.10.2011 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Moga.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
- -----------------------------
Present:- Sh. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate, counsel for the appellants/applicants.
None for the respondent.
---------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Applicants/appellants- Sahara Service Limited and others (In short, "the applicants") have filed this application for condonation of delay of 137 days in filing the present appeal.Misc. Appl. No.627 of 2012 2
In/and First Appeal No.373 of 2012
2. It was submitted by the applicants that the appeal has been filed against the exparte order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the District Forum, Moga. The applicants could not be represented in the proceedings before the District Forum due to the reasons beyond their control and the important and material facts and submissions could not be placed before the District Forum. The applicants received the copy of the impugned order at their Registered Office at Aliganj, Lucknow and thereafter, the same was forwarded to its Corporate Office at Gurgaon, for further action. All the communications of the applicant company are received at a common desk which are later on sorted out and are sent to the concerned departments. After receiving the copy of the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 at the Corporate Office, it was sent to the legal department for taking legal advice.
3. The applicant company is the Group Company of Sahara India Pariwar, an Indian Conglomerate. The legal department of the applicant company forwarded the same to the counsel with instructions to inspect the record of the file of the District Forum. The counsel for the applicant sought various details regarding the present case from the applicants and inspected the record of the District Forum and then obtained the certified copy of the judicial file dated 21.02.2012 and thereafter, after taking necessary feedback from the applicant company, the counsel drafted the appeal. Then the appeal was sent to the Registered Office at Lucknow for vetting and final approval, and then to Corporate Office at Gurgaon for forwarding the same to the counsel at Chandigarh.
4. The delay of 137 days in filing the appeal has been occasioned due to the reasons mentioned above and was beyond the control the applicants. The applicants have a good case in their favour and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour. It was prayed that the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal may be condoned. Misc. Appl. No.627 of 2012 3
In/and First Appeal No.373 of 2012
5. No reply to the application was filed on behalf of the respondent despite availing sufficient opportunities, including last chance granted.
6. We have heard the counsel for the applicants and have perused the record.
7. Neither the counsel for the respondent nor anybody else appeared on his behalf at the time of arguments on the application.
8. The impugned order under appeal was passed on 12.10.2011 and there is no reason mentioned as to how the applicants came to know about the passing of the impugned order. The impugned order was passed on 12.10.2011 and the copy was applied on 21.02.2012 i.e. after more than four months and the applicants have failed to bring on record any material about the knowledge of the order passed. The applicants as per own whims applied for the copy and even after receiving the certified copy of the order on 22.02.2012, the appeal was not filed till 27.03.2012. No dates or particulars are mentioned as to when the file was sent and when it was received back. The application is vague and has been filed in a very casual manner, thinking that the delay of whatsoever kind will be exonerated, forgetting that the law of limitation is very stringent and it helps those, who keep a vigil to their rights, but not the persons those who slumber over their rights. The approach of the applicants is very casual and there is no reason, much less sufficient reason, to condone the delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 Misc. Appl. No.627 of 2012 4 In/and First Appeal No.373 of 2012 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".
9. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case reported as "Union of India & Ors. Vs Hari Singh ", 2009(4) RCR (Civil)-654, declined to condone the delay for taking the matter in casual manner. In Para-7, it was observed as follows:-
"Even otherwise, no explanation is forthcoming from 15.09.2004 to 18.01.2005 for not filing the appeal. The pleadings in application itself show that the matter was being taken in most casual manner, without bothering for the law of limitation".
10. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down, the application filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 137 days in filing the present appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. Main Case
11. As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, the appeal i.e. F.A. No.373 of 2012 also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. The arguments in the application were heard on 10.05.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member May 17, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)