State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Madan Lal. vs Director Indian Institute Of Planning ... on 2 April, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No: 425/2014.
Date of Presentation: 05.12.2014.
Date of Decision: 02.04.2015.
........................................................................
Madan Lal S/o Shri Krishan Lal,
R/o Shiv Bhavan, Dinghu Mandir Road,
Sanjauli, Shimla-171006, H.P.
... Appellant
Versus
1. Director,
Indian Institute of Planning Management (IIPM),
Level-4, Rectangle-1, D-4,
Behind Select City Walk,
Saket District Center, New Delhi.
2. Dean,
Indian Institute of Planning Management (IIPM),
IIPM Tower, C-127, Phase 8,
SAS Nagar, ELTOP Industrial Area,
Mohali, Chandigarh (U.T.).
3. Assistant Dean,
Indian Institute of Planning Management (IIPM),
IIPM Tower, C-127, Phase 8, SAS Nagar,
ELTOP Industrial Area, Mohali,
Chandigarh (U.T.).
... Respondents
...........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Arun Raj, Advocate
For Respondent No.1: Ex-parte.
For Respondents No.2&3: Deleted.
................................................................................................
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Madan Lal vs. Director, Indian Institute of Planning Management & Ors.
(F.A. No.425/2014)
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Counsel representing the applicant- appellant submits that the branch at Mohali, where respondents No.2 & 3 were posted as Dean & Assistant Dean, respectively, have been shutdown and that in view of shutting down of that branch, the matter be proceed only as against the Director of the Institution, who is impleaded as respondent No.1. He prays for the deletion of the names of respondents No.2 & 3 from the array of respondents. Prayer allowed subject to just exceptions and also subject to all legal consequences, which may follow on account of deletion of the names of respondents No.2 & 3, who were impleaded as opposite parties in the main complaint. Respondent No.1 has already been proceeded against ex-parte.
2. Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 20th November, 2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes 2 Madan Lal vs. Director, Indian Institute of Planning Management & Ors.
(F.A. No.425/2014) Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby appellant's complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, had been dismissed, in default of his appearance.
3. Memorandum of appeal was presented on 05.12.2014, or say more than two years after the passing of the impugned order. Therefore, an application, i.e. M.A. No.983/2014, for condonation of delay has been moved. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the appellant had engaged a counsel to represent him before the learned District Forum, but on the date, when the impugned order was passed, the counsel was attending upon his maternal ant at Fortis Hospital, Mohali, because that aunt of the counsel had been operated upon for heart problem. Further, it is stated that the counsel came to know about the passing of the impugned order in the month of April, 2013, whereafter he procured a copy of order, which 3 Madan Lal vs. Director, Indian Institute of Planning Management & Ors.
(F.A. No.425/2014) was supplied on 02.05.2013. Thereafter, he tried to contact the appellant's father, but he could not contact him, as he (the father of the applicant-appellant) had lost his mobile. It is stated that in the month of May, 2013, the counsel engaged by the appellant shifted his office and in the course of shifting of his office, he happened to misplace the file of the applicant-appellant. Also, it is stated that it was in the second week of November, 2014, when the applicant-appellant was informed that the complaint stood dismissed and, thereafter, the complainant's counsel traced the file and appeal was got drafted and presented to this Commission.
4. Respondent No.1 refused to accept the notice and was, therefore, ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. Respondents No.2 & 3, are the Dean and Assistant Dean of a branch of respondent No.1 at Mohali. The branch is stated to have been shutdown. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed 4 Madan Lal vs. Director, Indian Institute of Planning Management & Ors.
(F.A. No.425/2014) for deletion of their names and his prayer has been allowed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and gone through the record.
6. The impugned order was passed on 20th November, 2012. Counsel engaged by the applicant-appellant was supposed to be knowing that the matter was listed for hearing on that date. Even if, it be assumed, that counsel engaged by the applicant-appellant was unable to attend the proceedings before the District Forum on 20.11.2012, owing to surgery of his aunt, as alleged in the application, still the plea for condonation of delay cannot be accepted for the reason that according to the averment, made in para 3 of the application, the counsel made no enquiries until April, 2013, to know the fate of the case and ultimately when in April, 2013, he came to know that the complaint had been dismissed in default, he made no efforts to send the copy of 5 Madan Lal vs. Director, Indian Institute of Planning Management & Ors.
(F.A. No.425/2014) the order to the applicant-appellant, which he allegedly procured on 02.05.2013. May be that the father of the applicant-appellant lost his mobile phone, as alleged in the application, but the counsel was supposed to have sent the copy to the applicant-appellant on the address given in the complaint by post or some other mode of transmission.
7. May be that the counsel engaged by the applicant-appellant was not vigilant and careful, as alleged, but the applicant-appellant himself did not pursue the matter seriously. Complaint was filed in the year 2012 and until November, 2014, as per averment made in the application, he did not bother to contact his counsel to know the fate of his case. The fact suggests that probably the applicant-appellant came to know about the dismissal of his complaint, in default, long before November, 2014.
8. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the application for 6 Madan Lal vs. Director, Indian Institute of Planning Management & Ors.
(F.A. No.425/2014) condonation of delay. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal, i.e. F.A. No.425/2014, being barred by time, is also dismissed.
9. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member April 02, 2015.
N Mehta) 7