State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Bharti Kapoor vs Lloyds Air Condition on 14 May, 2024
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.837 of 2023
In/and
First Appeal No.422 of 2023
Date of institution : 31.05.2023
Date of Reserve : 29.04.2024
Date of Decision : 14.05.2024
Mrs. Bharti Kapoor, age about 55 years, w/o Sh. Jagjeet Kapoor, R/o 3832,
Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana.
....Appellant
Versus
1. Lloyds Air Conditioner (Branch of Havel's India Ltd.), Bindra Complex,
Nr. Petrol Pump, Near Tikona Park, Mode Town, Ludhiana, through its
Branch Manager/Authorized Manager.
2. Mehtab Motor and Trading Company, Main Market, Model Town
through its Owner/Proprietor/authorized Manager.
3. Lloyds Air Conditioner (Branch of Havel's India Ltd.), Regd. Office 904,
Surya Kiran Building, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Branch
Manager/Authorized Manager.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order 02.03.2022 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Ms. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Sh. Sachin Gupta, proxy for
Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate
KIRAN SIBAL, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
M.A. No. 837 of 2023 (Delay)
This application has been filed by learned counsel for
applicant/appellant for condonation of delay of 396 days in filing the appeal. The ground taken by the applicant is that the impugned order was passed by the District Commission on 02.03.2022 and the same was received by the First Appeal No.422 of 2023 2 applicant at the end of March 2022. After receiving the impugned order the applicant tried to approach the counsel, but the mobile-phone of the said counsel was not working, she was shocked to know that the counsel had not appeared and the case was decided without arguments. It is also submitted that in the month of April 2022, the complainant had visited the Court Complex to discuss the further course of action, but she got to know through other advocates that the said counsel namely C.S. Chopra, Advocate had left the practice and had migrated to Canada. The said fact was never disclosed to the applicant rather the entire documents of the case were with the said counsel, thereafter, applicant tried to contact the clerk of the counsel, but all in vain. However, in the month of April 2023, the said counsel had informed the applicant that he had returned from Canada and had joined the practice again and applicant was advised to challenge the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 and entire file along with all the documents were handed over the applicant on 10.05.2023. The said counsel also issued his affidavit dated 25.05.2023 deposing all these facts. While submitting the unconditional apology before the Commission for not filing the appeal within limitation, the prayer has been made to condone the delay of 396 days in filing the case.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has filed reply to the application for condonation of delay and has vehemently contended that the averments of the application are nothing but a concocted story resulted with the colourful legal advice just only to shadow the negligence and unjustified delay on the part of the applicant/appellant. Further stated that the delay is inordinate and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record of the District Commission carefully. I am not inclined to accept the averments of the applicant/appellant for the reason that case before the District Commission was duly contested by the counsel and it was First Appeal No.422 of 2023 3 well within the knowledge of the applicant/appellant that the proceedings of the case were going on. The reasons given for condonation of delay on the ground that counsel had gone abroad without informing the applicant/appellant is on the vague footing especially when she herself stated that the same counsel came back and informed her in April 2023 that he had joined the practice with the suggestion that she should file the appeal, but the present case has been filed by applicant/appellant on 31.05.2023. Moreover, she herself admitted that she had received the impugned order in the month of March 2022, but she didn't have the documents to prefer the appeal before this Commission. However, perusal of impugned order clearly shows that all the documents were duly submitted by the complainant along with affidavit before the District Commission. Applicant/appellant could have procured the documents from the District Commission, but no efforts were made by her to procure the same from the District Commission for filing the present appeal. Further, no sufficient reason has been given for condoning the delay of 396 days and the same has occurred only due to the inaction on the part of the applicant. I am of considered view that the grounds mentioned in the application are not sufficient to seek the condonation of inordinate delay of 396 days in filing the appeal.
4. The matter has been settled by Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in Consumer Protection Reporter in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein it was held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted for achieving a specific object. The object is the expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes. The very purpose of the Act will be defeated, in case, Court was to entertain highly belated petitions against the order of the Consumer Fora. Stale matters cannot be allowed to be agitated again and again. Law of limitation operates somewhat rigorously. We find that a specified period for filing the First Appeal No.422 of 2023 4 appeal has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act and the very purpose of this special Act would be defeated by condoning stale matters.
5. In the light of the above, there is no sufficient ground to condone unexplained 396 days inordinate delay in this case, because a legal right has already vested in the respondents of this appeal by efflux of time.
6. As such, I do not find any merit in the application of condonation of delay of 396 days, as put in by the appellant, and the same is hereby dismissed.
Main Appeal
7. Since, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, hence the appeal is barred by time and is ordered to be dismissed in limine.
8. Certified copies of the order be communicated under rule to the parties.
(KIRAN SIBAL) PRESIDING MEMBER May 14th, 2024 DB