State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Avleen Motors vs Sandeep Kumar on 30 November, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.214 of 2023
And
Misc. Application No.425 of 2023
Date of institution : 24.03.2023
Reserved On : 22.11.2023
Date of decision : 30.11.2023
Avleen Motors, Kotkapura Road, Dr. Kehar Singh Complex, Sri
Muktsar Sahib, through its Proprietor Harmeet Singh, aged about 50
years Sodhi C/o Iqbal Singh, Khubber Patti, near Govt. School,
Ambala Cantt., Shahpur (125) Ambala (Haryana).
Email ID:[email protected]
Phone No.89010-37122
....Appellant/OP
Versus
Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Lachman Dass R/o House No.321/1, Khera
Colony, Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Mobile No.98762-37997
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2) First Appeal No.215 of 2023
And
Misc. Application No.426 of 2023
Date of institution : 24.03.2023
Reserved On : 22.11.2023
Date of decision : 30.11.2023
Avleen Motors, Kotkapura Road, Dr. Kehar Singh Complex, Sri
Muktsar Sahib, through its Proprietor Harmeet Singh, aged about 50
years Sodhi C/o Iqbal Singh, Khubber Patti, near Govt. School,
Ambala Cantt., Shahpur (125) Ambala (Haryana).
Email ID:[email protected]
Phone No.89010-37122
First Appeal No.214 of 2023 2
....Appellant/OP
Versus
Ashwani Kumar aged about 61 years son of Sh. Janak Raj R/o Street
No.03, Vohra Colony, Kotli Road, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar
Sahib. Mobile No.98154-80426
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
3) First Appeal No.216 of 2023
And
Misc. Application No.427 of 2023
Date of institution : 24.03.2023
Reserved On : 22.11.2023
Date of decision : 30.11.2023
Avleen Motors, Kotkapura Road, Dr. Kehar Singh Complex, Sri
Muktsar Sahib, through its Proprietor Harmeet Singh, aged about 50
years Sodhi C/o Iqbal Singh, Khubber Patti, near Govt. School,
Ambala Cantt., Shahpur (125) Ambala (Haryana).
Email ID:[email protected]
Phone No.89010-37122
....Appellant/OP
Versus
Harpal Kaur aged about 69 years D/o Mukhtiar Singh (Wife of Gurtej
Singh) R/o Village Udekaran, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Mobile No.98772-39131
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
First Appeal No.214 of 2023 3
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes/No
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Fatehjeet Singh, Advocate.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
This order of ours shall dispose off 3 appeals i.e. First Appeal No.214 of 2023, First Appeal No.215 of 2023 and First Appeal No.216 of 2023, as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein and the same have been filed against the similar orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short, "the District Commission").
However, the facts are being extracted from Misc. Application No.425 of 2023 in/and First Appeal No.214 of 2023. First Appeal No.214 of 2023:
2. Appellant/OP i.e. Avleen Motors, Kotkapura Road, Dr. Mehar Singh Complex, Sri Muktsar Sahib, through its Proprietor Harmeet Singh has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the District Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the appellant/OP was directed to get the Registration Certificate issued of First Appeal No.214 of 2023 4 the vehicle of the complainant and also to pay an amount of ₹5,000/-
as consolidated compensation towards harassment, litigation expenses etc. to the complainant and also to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- as cost to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission as imposed vide order dated 13.01.2021. Said order was to be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the respondent/complainant in the Complaint filed by him before the District Commission are that the complainant was allured by the advertisement issued by the OP and the motorcycle TVS Star Sports was booked through challan No.658 dated 26.09.2017. Said vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 29.09.2019. The OP had also received the fee for getting the Registration Certificate (RC) issued from the complainant with the promise that the RC would be provided within a period of 10 days. However, still the original RC was not issued and only the provisional RC was issued in the name of the complainant, which was valid up to 28.09.2018. On the expiry of the said period, the complainant had visited the OP on a number of occasions but still the original RC of the vehicle was not issued and First Appeal No.214 of 2023 5 the matter was lingered for a longer period. Thereafter, a legal notice was served upon the OP but still nothing was done.
5. Thereafter, the Complaint was filed by the complainant for issuing of directions to the OP to issue the RC of the said vehicle and also to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- as compensation and ₹10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
6. Upon issuing notice to the OP, Mr. Harmeet Singh, proprietor of the OP had filed written version, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised stating therein that the complainant was not having any cause of action or locus standi to file the complaint. It was also mentioned that the number issued to the complainant was of the old portal of the Punjab Government and it was closed. Thereafter, new portal 4G was running. The delay in issuing the RC was on the part of the office of the SDM, Sri Muktsar and not on the part of the OP. Other allegations as made in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
7. By considering the contents of the complaint and reply thereof filed by the OP, the complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 03.02.2021. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-11 is reproduced as under:
"11. In view of the discussion made above, present complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to get issued the Registration Certificate of the vehicle of complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- consolidated as compensation for harassment, litigation expenses etc. to the complainant and to deposit Rs.5000/- as cost in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, so imposed vide order dated 13.01.2021 during First Appeal No.214 of 2023 6 pendency of the complaint. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of order be issued to the parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room."
8. Said order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the appellant/OP by way of filing the present appeal by raising a number of arguments.
9. There is a delay of 719 days in filing of the appeal. Misc. Application No.425 of 2023 has been filed by the appellant/OP for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit.
10. Notice of the said application was issued to the respondent/complainant and reply to the application was also filed.
11. Mr. Neeraj Jain, learned counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that upon issuing of notice of the Complaint, the proprietor of the OP had appeared personally before the District Commission and also filed the written statement. A counsel was also engaged by the OP but he did not appear before the District Commission and due to this reason, the passing of the impugned order by the District Commission was not in the knowledge of the appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant had suffered financial losses and as such the firm had shutdown the business and the proprietor of the firm had shifted to Ambala in the year 2018. The impugned order came to the knowledge of the OP only on receiving the notice dated 01.12.2022 issued in the Execution Application filed by the respondent/complainant before the District First Appeal No.214 of 2023 7 Commission. Learned counsel has also submitted that only in the 1st week of February, 2023, the appellant with the advice and assistance of their relatives and local lawyers made up his mind to file the appeal and thereafter the appeal was filed immediately. The delay in filing of the appeal was not deliberate or intentional but it was only on the ground that the counsel did not appear before the District Commission as the OP was not aware about this fact. The delay in filing of the appeal be condoned. Learned counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Ors. (2005) AIR (SC) 2191;
ii) Hemlata Verma v. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2019) 5 RCR (Civil) 504 (SC); and
iii) Punjab National Bank v. Hakhtawar Singh & Ors. RP No.80 of 2022 decided on 03.04.2023 (Punjab State Commission).
12. Mr. Fatehjeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the appellant/OP has misled the Commission by stating that the appellant had closed the operation of the Firm running at Sri Muktsar Sahib in the year 2018 and had shifted to Ambala but the appellant was still running the Service Centre at the same place i.e. Sri Muktsar Sahib. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant has levelled certain allegations against the members of the legal fraternity by stating that the District Commission should have issued the fresh notice to him. The impugned order was passed on 03.02.2021 and the Execution First Appeal No.214 of 2023 8 Application was filed in the month of April, 2021, wherein the expert mechanic namely Amritpal Singh had appeared on a number of occasions and he had sought adjournment by giving the statement that the proprietor of the firm Mr. Harmeet Singh was to appear and to comply with the order but thereafter none had appeared on behalf of the OP and the bailable warrants were issued against the OP. Thereafter, non-bailable warrants were also issued but still the same were not executed. The appellant was keeping watch upon the proceedings and intentionally did not appear before the District Commission. Learned counsel has also submitted that there was delay of about 2 years in filing of the same and no justified reasons have been mentioned for condonation of delay and as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed being time barred and also on merits.
13. We have heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
14. Facts regarding filing of the Complaint by the Complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the appellant/OP, allowing of said Complaint and thereafter filing of the present Appeal by the appellant/OP are not in dispute.
15. Admittedly, there is delay of 719 days in filing of the appeal. M.A. No.425 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of said First Appeal No.214 of 2023 9 delay. It has been mentioned in the application that the delay had occurred as the counsel, who was engaged by the OP, did not appear before the District Commission and due to this reason, the passing of the impugned order by the District Commission was not in the knowledge of the complainant. The appellant had suffered financial losses and as such the Firm had shutdown the business and the Proprietor of the Firm had shifted to Ambala in the year 2018. The impugned order came to the knowledge of the OP upon receiving notice dated 01.12.2022 issued in the Execution Application filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Commission.
16. It is relevant to mention that the appellant has himself admitted in Para-3 of the Application for condonation of delay that after the filing of the complaint, the Proprietor of the appellant Firm had personally appeared before the District Commission. Counsel namely Mr. Raminder Singh was engaged and even the written statement was also filed. Said counsel had failed to appear in the complaint subsequently. The appellant has also mentioned that the District Commission should have issued fresh notice to the appellant in case his counsel had not appeared. This stand of the appellant is not acceptable. Once on the service of notice, the appellant had appeared through counsel and had also filed the written statement, then no fresh notice was required to the issued by the District Commission in case First Appeal No.214 of 2023 10 the counsel or the appellant had absented from the proceedings of the complaint later on.
17. As far as the stand of the appellant that due to financial losses, the Firm had shutdown the business and the Proprietor of the Firm was shifted to Ambala in the year 2018 is concerned, admittedly the complaint was filed before the District Commission on 04.09.2019 and the service of the appellant/OP was effected at the address given in the Complaint, which was of Sri Muktsar. Meaning thereby the appellant had been doing the business at Sri Muktsar even after filing of the complaint. The appellant/OP had continued to appear before the District Commission in the proceedings of the Complaint till 30.12.2020 but when the case was fixed for remaining arguments and only thereafter he remained absent. The impugned order was passed on 03.02.2021, whereby the Complaint was allowed.
18. The complainant had filed the Execution Application to execute the impugned order passed by the District Commission. Notice was sent to the appellant/OP but he did not appear. Even the bailable warrants as well as non-bailable warrants were issued. Mr. Amritpal Singh, Expert Mechanic of the appellant/OP had appeared on 25.07.2022 and requested for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Harmeet Singh, OP would appear on the next date for compliance of the order. Thereafter, neither said Amritpal Singh nor the appellant/OP First Appeal No.214 of 2023 11 had appeared for compliance of the order and non-bailable warrants were issued against the OP.
19. On perusal of all these facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the Appellant/OP had initially appeared in the Complaint and had also filed the written statement and evidence and he remained absent only at the stage of arguments. Even in the Execution Application filed by the complainant, one Amritpal Singh, Expert Mechanic of the OP had appeared and had undertaken to produce the OP but later on none had appeared on behalf of the OP. All the proceedings of the Complaint as well as the Execution Application were in the knowledge of the OP but he wilfully and intentionally did not appear at the time of arguments as well as for compliance of the impugned order in the Execution Application.
20. The impugned order was passed by the District Commission on 03.02.2021. Admittedly, the period of limitation to file any suit, appeal, application or any other proceedings was extended in view of order No.95 of 2021 dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in pursuance of the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A. No.665 of 2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 titled as "In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation". Further vide order dated 10.01.2022 passed in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had further extended the period of limitation to file such cases till 01.03.2022. In First Appeal No.214 of 2023 12 view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble National Commission vide Office Order No.7 of 2022 dated 14.01.2022 had issued the following directions:
"II. Computation of delay in such matters in which Limitation expires between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022:
The delay in filing the matters, i.e., Revision Petitions, First Appeals, Consumer Complaints, Written Statements, Applications, etc., where limitation is expiring between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, shall be computed in the following manner:
(i) The period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for computing limitation.
(ii) Limitation shall be further extended by 90 days from 01.03.2022, i.e. till 29.05.2022.
Since 29.05.2022 is Sunday, the matters filed on 30.05.2022 will be considered to have been filed within limitation. However, if matters are filed on 31.05.2022 or thereafter, then delay shall be computed from 30.05.2022 onwards.
(iii) The matters in which the limitation (provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as may be applicable) is expiring during the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 (i.e., before 01.03.2022) and such a matter is filed during the same period (i.e., from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) with some delay, such matter shall be treated as having been filed within the limitation.
3. The directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall not apply to the matters filed/instituted against such orders which shall be passed by the State Commissions on or after 01.03.2022. In such an event, the standard procedure for computation of limitation shall apply."
21. As per the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon'ble National Commission and also the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 from time to time, the limitation period from 15.03.2022 to 28.02.2022 was to be excluded. The Limitation period was further extended by 90 days w.e.f. 01.03.2022 till 29.05.2022.
First Appeal No.214 of 2023 13
22. However, the present appeal was filed on 24.03.2023, i.e. after a long delay of about 10 months even after the expiry of the extended period up to 29.05.2022. No cogent and convincing explanation has been given for condonation of huge delay in filing of the appeal. As already mentioned above, the appellant had willfully and intentionally had remained absent from the proceedings of the Complaint as well as the Execution Application.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. Civil Appeal No.2075 of 2010 decided on 26.02.2010 had rejected/dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 4 years in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground that the explanation given for condonation of delay was not satisfactory. The relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Para-13 & 14 is reproduced as under:
"13. From what we have noted above, it is clear that the Law Department of respondent No.1 was very much aware of the proceedings of the first as well as the second suit. In the first case, Ms. Rekhaben M. Patel was appointed as an advocate and in the second case Shri B.R. Sharma was instructed to appear on behalf of the respondents, but none of the officers is shown to have personally contacted either of the advocates for the purpose of filing written statement and preparation of the case and none bothered to appear before the trial Court on any of the dates of hearing. It is a matter of surprise that even though an officer of the rank of General Manager (Law) had issued instructions to Ms. Rekhaben M. Patel to appear and file vakalat as early as in May 2001 and Manager (Law) had given vakalat to Shri B.R. Sharma, Advocate in the month of May 2005, in the application filed for condonation of delay, the respondents boldly stated that the Law Department came to know about the ex parte decree only in the month of January/February 2008. The respondents went to the extent of suggesting that the parties may have arranged or joined hands with some employee of First Appeal No.214 of 2023 14 the corporation and that may be the reason why after engaging advocates, nobody contacted them for the purpose of giving instructions for filing written statement and giving appropriate instructions which resulted in passing of the ex parte decrees. In our view, the above statement contained in para 1 of the application is not only incorrect but is ex facie false and the High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondents is dismissed. As a corollary, the appeal filed by the respondents against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 shall stand dismissed as barred by time.
24. In another case titled as Basawaraj & Anr. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Civil Appeal No.6974 of 2013 decided on 22.08.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to condone the delay where the sufficient explanation for condonation of delay was not furnished. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v.Veena First Appeal No.214 of 2023 15 @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629.)
10. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993 this Court explained the difference between a "good cause" and a "sufficient cause" and observed that every "sufficient cause" is a good cause and vice versa. However, if any difference exists it can only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof that that of "sufficient cause".
11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide: Madanlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100; and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1201.)
12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
13. The Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale.
According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 24, p. 181:
"330. Policy of Limitation Acts. The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence".
An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence' or laches.
(See: Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. (2005) 7 SCC 510; Rajendar Singh & Ors. v. Santa Singh & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 2537; and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448).
14. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2002 SC 1856, this Court held that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by First Appeal No.214 of 2023 16 the Constitution Bench in A. R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701.
15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.
16. In view of above, no interference is required with impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeals lack merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. ..."
25. In one more case titled as Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 decided on 16.12.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by relying upon the aforesaid judgment has refused to condone the huge delay of 1011 days in filing the Second Appeal for want of bonafide and sufficient cause/reasons.
26. In view of the above discussion as well as the law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the delay cannot be condoned in case the appellant/applicant has acted negligently and no sufficient explanation for condonation of delay has been given. The appellant/OP was well aware about the proceedings of the Complaint as well as the Execution Application and he deliberately and intentionally absented himself from those proceedings. There is no ground/reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. First Appeal No.214 of 2023 17 First Appeal No.215 of 2023:
27. Appellant/OP i.e. Avleen Motors, Kotkapura Road, Dr. Mehar Singh Complex, Sri Muktsar Sahib, through its Proprietor Harmeet Singh has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant was allowed ex parte and the appellant/OP was directed to get the Registration Certificate issued of the vehicle of the Complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the OP was liable to refund the price of the vehicle i.e. ₹51,110/- and the Complainant was to hand over the vehicle in question to the OP. The OP was further directed to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and ₹3,000/- towards litigation expenses etc. to the Complainant and also to deposit an amount of ₹5,000/- towards cost in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission.
28. There was delay of 576 days in filing of the said appeal. Misc. Application No.426 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of said delay.
29. It has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that on 05.03.2021 notice of the complaint was issued to the First Appeal No.214 of 2023 18 appellant/OP for 08.04.2021. However, due to holiday on 08.04.2021, the case was taken up by the District Commission on 09.04.2021 and the OP was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 09.04.2021. Thereafter, the Complaint was decided vide order dated 03.06.2021. Said order passed by the District Commission came to the knowledge of the OP on receipt of the notice issued in the Execution Application filed by the complainant before the District Commission. Thereafter, with the advice and assistance of their relatives and local lawyers in the first week of February, 2023, the Appellant/OP had made up his mind to file the appeal and thereafter the Appeal was filed immediately. The delay in filing of the appeal was not deliberate or intentional but it was due to the bonafide reasons which were beyond the control of the OP. The delay in filing of the appeal is labile to be condoned.
30. Reply to the application for condonation of delay was filed by the respondent/complainant.
31. It is relevant to mention that the OP was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 09.04.2021 and the impugned order was passed on 30.06.2021 whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed ex parte. As per version of the appellant, he came to know about the passing of the impugned order when he received the Notice in the Execution Application filed by the complainant before the District Commission. However, it has not been First Appeal No.214 of 2023 19 mentioned as on which date the said Notice was received by the appellant. On perusal of stamp affixed by the District Commission on certified copy of the impugned order dated 30.06.2021, the certified copy of the order was supplied to the Appellant on 01.07.2021. However, the Appeal was filed on 24.03.2023 i.e. after a long delay of more than 20 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the impugned order. No explanation has been given by the appellant as to why the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. First Appeal No.216 of 2023:
32. Appellant/OP i.e. Avleen Motors, Kotkapura Road, Dr. Mehar Singh Complex, Sri Muktsar Sahib, through its Proprietor Harmeet Singh has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant was allowed ex parte and the appellant/OP was directed to get the Registration Certificate issued of the vehicle of the complainant. The OP was further directed to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- as consolidated compensation for causing harassment and litigation expenses etc. to the Complainant. The compliance of the order was to be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. First Appeal No.214 of 2023 20
33. There was delay of 676 days in filing of the said appeal. Misc. Application No.427 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of said delay.
34. It has been mentioned in the Application for condonation of delay that on 07.10.2020, the notice of the complaint was issued to the Appellant/OP for 12.11.2020. However, due to holidays and also that the quorum of the District Commission was not complete, the case was taken up on some other date. The Appellant/OP was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 09.12.2020. Thereafter, the Complaint was decided vide order dated 24.03.2021. The Appellant came to know about the passing of the impugned order only on receipt of the notice issued in the Execution Application filed by the complainant before the District Commission. Thereafter, with the advice and assistance of their relatives and local lawyers only in the first week of February, 2023, the Appellant/OP had made up his mind to file the Appeal and thereafter the Appeal was filed immediately. The delay in filing of the appeal was not deliberate or intentional but due to the bonafide reasons which were beyond the control of the OP. The delay in filing of the appeal is labile to be condoned.
35. In the said case, notice was issued to the Respondent/Complainant but none had appeared on his behalf despite service.
First Appeal No.214 of 2023 21
36. It is relevant to mention that the OP was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 09.12.2020 and the impugned order was passed on 24.03.2021 whereby the Complaint filed by the complainant was allowed ex parte. As per the version of the Appellant, he came to know about the passing of the impugned order when he received the notice in the Execution Application filed by the Complainant before the District Commission. However, it has not been mentioned as to on which date the said notice was received by the Appellant. On perusal of stamp affixed by the District Commission on the impugned order dated 24.03.2021, the certified copy of the order was supplied to the office appellant/OP by hand by the office peon of the District Commission on 25.03.2021. The application for supplying the fresh copy of the order was moved on 09.02.2023, which was supplied on the same day. However, the Appeal was filed on 24.03.2023 i.e. after a long delay of more than two years from the date of supply of certified copy of the impugned order to the office of the OP by hand. No explanation has been given by the Appellant as to why there was delay of two years from the date of receipt of certified copy of the impugned order. Since the certified copy of the impugned order was supplied to the office of the OP by hand by the office Peon of the District Commission, then the obtaining of fresh certified Copy of the impugned order on 09.02.2023 will not extend the period of limitation. First Appeal No.214 of 2023 22
37. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, no explanation has been given by the appellant(s) as to why the appeals were not filed within the limitation period. There is no ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant/OP are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
38. Accordingly, the Misc. Application No.425 of 2023, Misc. Application No.426 of 2023 and Misc. Application No.427 of 2023 for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals are dismissed. Since the applications for condonation of delay have been dismissed, so the First Appeal No.214 of 2023, First Appeal No.215 of 2023 and First Appeal No.216 of 2023 are also dismissed being barred by limitation.
39. Since the main cases have been disposed of, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
40. In First Appeal No.214 of 2023, as per the report of the Registry, earlier the appellant/OP had filed First Appeal No.95 of 2023. Said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2023 and appellant was granted liberty to file fresh Appeal with better particulars. The appellant had deposited a sum of ₹5,000/- at the time of filing of the said appeal. The Registry was directed to adjust the said First Appeal No.214 of 2023 23 amount against the fresh appeal to be filed by the appellant if filed within a period of one month.
41. The said appeal was filed within the above said period. Therefore, said amount of ₹5000/-, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
42. In First Appeal No.215 of 2023, as per the report of the Registry, earlier the appellant/OP had filed First Appeal No.97 of 2023. Said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2023 and the appellant was granted liberty to file fresh Appeal with better particulars. The appellant had deposited a sum of ₹32,055/- at the time of filing of the said Appeal. The Registry was directed to adjust the said amount against the fresh appeal to be filed by the appellant if filed within a period of one month.
43. The said Appeal was filed within the above said period. Therefore, said amount of ₹32,055/-, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
First Appeal No.214 of 2023 24
44. In First Appeal No.216 of 2023, as per the report of the Registry, earlier the appellant/OP had filed First Appeal No.96 of 2023. Said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2023 and appellant was granted liberty to file fresh Appeal with better particulars. The appellant had deposited a sum of ₹2,500/- at the time of filing of the said appeal. The Registry was directed to adjust the said amount against the fresh appeal to be filed by the appellant if filed within a period of one month.
45. The said appeal was filed within the above said period. Therefore, said amount of ₹2,500/-, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
46. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER November 30, 2023.
(Gurmeet S)