State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Employees State Insurance Corp. ... vs Sh. Majinder Singh. & Anr. on 27 July, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Misc. Application No.: 556/2017
Date of Presentation: 05.08.2017
Order Reserved On : 26.05.2018
Date of Order : 27.07.2018
......
Employee's State Insurance Corporation Housing Board Phase-I
Sai Road Baddi District Solan H.P. through its Director.
...... Applicant/Revisionist/Opposite party No.1
Versus
1. Shri Manjinder Singh s/o Shri Harbhajan Singh r/o Village
Kather Post Office Chambaghat Tehsil and District Solan
H.P. presently c/o ICICI Lombard Rajgarh Road near
D.C. Office Solan Tehsil and District Solan H.P.
......Non-applicant/Non-revisionist No.1/ Complainant
2. M/s. Checkmate Services Private Limited Baddi Tehsil
Baddi District Solan H.P. through its Managing
Director/General Manager.
......Non-applicant/ Non-revisionist No.2/ Opposite party No.2
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Applicant : Ms. Lalita Verma Advocate vice
Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma Advocate.
For Non-applicant No.1: Ms. Doshi Negi Advocate.
For Non-applicant No.2: Mr. Gurmeet Singh Authorized
person.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R:-
1. Present application is filed for condonation of delay of 47 (Forty seven) days in filing revision petition. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Employee's State Insurance Corporation V/s Manjinder Singh & Anr. (M.A. No.556/2017) Brief facts of matter:
2. Complainant Manjinder Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties. Learned District Forum vide interim order dated 21.03.2017 closed the defence of opposite party No.1 on the ground that version was not filed within forty five days as provided under Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Thereafter learned District Forum on dated 26.07.2017 proceeded ex-parte against opposite party No.1.
3. Feeling aggrieved against interim orders passed by learned District Forum dated 21.03.2017 and 26.07.2017 opposite party No.1 filed present revision petition alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing revision petition before State Commission.
4. Applicant pleaded in condonation application that version was not filed because learned advocate engaged by revisionist had gone out of station on account of personal exigency due to some function in the family and requested Shri Pankaj Kashyap to appear on behalf of revisionist. It is further pleaded that ex-parte proceedings were initiated by learned District Forum against revisionist in pre-lunch session when learned advocate engaged by revisionist was busy in other arbitration case. It is further pleaded that delay 2 Employee's State Insurance Corporation V/s Manjinder Singh & Anr. (M.A. No.556/2017) in filing revision petition is bonafide in nature and not intentional in nature. Prayer for condonation of delay of forty seven days in filing revision petition sought.
5. Per contra response filed on behalf of non- applicant No.1 pleaded therein that no affidavit of advocate filed in support of pleadings. It is further pleaded that delay has not been explained properly and it is further pleaded that delay in filing revision petition is intentional in nature and willful in nature. Prayer for dismissal of application sought.
6. Per contra response filed on behalf of non- applicant No.2 pleaded therein that no affidavit of Shri Pankaj Kashyap advocate filed in support of pleadings. It is pleaded that delay in filing the revision petition is intentional in nature. Prayer for dismissal of application sought.
7. We have heard learned advocates for applicant and non-applicant No.1 and we have also heard authorized person appeared on behalf of non-applicant No.2. We have also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arise for determination in present application.
1. Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to condone the delay of 47 (Forty seven) days in filing revision 3 Employee's State Insurance Corporation V/s Manjinder Singh & Anr. (M.A. No.556/2017) petition as alleged in the memorandum of grounds of application?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
9. Applicant filed affidavit of Kamta Prasad Ex.A-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that due to traffic jam advocate engaged by applicant could not reach consumer forum and when learned advocate engaged by applicant reached consumer forum in post lunch session then learned advocate engaged by applicant was informed that order stood dictated and signed by learned President. There is recital in the affidavit that advocate engaged by revisionist had gone out of station on account of personal exigency to attend family function and requested Shri Pankaj Kashyap advocate to appear before learned District Forum.
10. Per contra non-applicant filed affidavit Ex.NA-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that no affidavit of advocate filed by applicant in support of his version. There is further recital in the affidavit that delay in filing revision petition is intentional in nature and willful in nature.
11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that delay in filing revision petition was bonafide in nature and not intentional in nature is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that applicant has engaged 4 Employee's State Insurance Corporation V/s Manjinder Singh & Anr. (M.A. No.556/2017) advocate to contest the matter on behalf of applicant. State Commission is of the opinion that after engaging advocate applicant presumed that his learned advocate would file version within stipulated period and would also appear before learned District Forum in all proceedings. It is well settled law that party could not be penalized for the fault of advocate. See 2003 (III) CPJ 26 NC Eicher Tractor Ltd. Versus Late Chitranjan Prasad Singh & Ors. See 1994 (2) CPC 197 NC Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Consumer Education and Research Society & Ors.
12. Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 (DB) titled Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. Versus Mst. Katiji and others held that (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay would result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. It was held that when delay is condoned the highest that would happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing parties. (3) Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be adopted. (4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other then cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. (5) A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting 5 Employee's State Insurance Corporation V/s Manjinder Singh & Anr. (M.A. No.556/2017) to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. (6) Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice to the parties and judiciary is expected to do so.
13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicant No. 1 and authorized person who appeared on behalf of non-applicant No.2 that absence of applicant was intentional in nature and not bonafide in nature and delay has not been properly explained and on this ground application filed for condonation of delay be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that applicant could not be penalized for the fault of advocate.
State Commission is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the non-applicants in case delay in filing revision petition is condoned because due opportunity would be given to the non-applicants to address the State Commission in revision petition on merits. State Commission is of the opinion that non-applicant/complainant would be compensated with adequate costs for non-filing revision petition within time. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
14. In view of findings upon point No.1 above application filed for condonation of delay is allowed subject to 6 Employee's State Insurance Corporation V/s Manjinder Singh & Anr. (M.A. No.556/2017) payment of costs of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand) in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice. Costs shall be paid to non-applicant No.1/complainant. Observations shall not effect merits of revision petition in any manner and shall be strictly confined for disposal of application filed for condonation of delay. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. M.A. No.556/2017 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 27.07.2018.
*GUPTA* 7