State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.B.I. vs Elizabeth S. Gomes on 2 March, 2015
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION (Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 02.03.2015 First Appeal-63/14 State Bank of India, A Body Corporate Constituted under State Bank of India, Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021, and one of its Local Head Office (S) & Zonal Office (S) at 11, Parliament Street And One of its Branch at Ambedkar Nagar, Sector-III, New Delhi which is under the Control of Zonal Office at New Delhi ....Appellant Versus Ms. Elizabeth S Gomes D/o Late Edward Gomes R/o 249, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi-110062 ....Respondent CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Salma Noor - Member
N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial) Salma Noor, Member
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in complaint case no. 357/2011 titled as Ms. Elizabeth S. Gomes Vs. State Bank of India.
2. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the appellant/OP to pay a sum of Rs. 4,53,698/- after deducting the TDS amount of Rs. 11,437/- along with interest of 9%. Besides that the District Forum has also awarded Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the appellant has filed the appeal before this Commission.
3. Along with the appeal the appellant has also moved an application for condonation of delay.
4 We have heard Ms. Jaya Tomar, Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Rishi Gupta, Counsel for the respondent and perused the records.
5. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 82 days in filing the present appeal. As per ground taken in the application for condonation of delay, it is admitted by the appellant that he has received the copy of the impugned order dated 09.09.2013 only on 27.09.2013. It is stated by the appellant that the copy of the impugned order was inadvertently tagged in some other file of the appellant's bank from the table of the Branch Manager and when the Branch Manager was searching loan documents of its customer the impugned order was found lying in some other file on 13.12.2013. Thereafter, the copy of the impugned order was sent to the Regional Manager, who sent the order to the Law Officer at Zonal Office for taking opinion. Thereafter, receiving the opinion from the Law Officer vide Zonal Office the Regional Manager informed the branch to file the appeal against the order dated 09.09.2013 through its panel Advocate and thereafter the appellant bank engaged an Advocate who applied for a certified copy and thereafter the appeal was filed on 17.01.2014.
6. It is not the case of the appellant that it has not received the copy of the order at all. Appellant pleaded that the copy of the impugned order was tagged with some other file and due to that this appeal could not be filed on time. It shows the casual approach of the appellant. Even after 13.12.2013 the file was moving from one table to another table in the office of the appellant.
7. It is well settled that "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact. Under the Act, special period of limitation has been provided to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no expert opinion is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert opinion is required to be taken. Inordinate delay of 82 days cannot be condoned without showing "sufficient cause". The delay has also not been explained to our satisfaction.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority - 1986-2013 Consumer 17490 (NS) : 2013(1) CCC 910(NS) : IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations made by Apex Court read as under:
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated it this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer fora".
9. As discussed above we are not inclined to condone the delay of 82 days. Accordingly, we reject the application for seeking condonation of delay. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal also as being time barred.
A copy of the order be provided to the parties free of costs as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
(Salma Noor) Member (N P Kaushik) Member (Judicial)