State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhwinder Singh vs Amita on 1 April, 2019
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37 A, CHANDIGARH
Misc. Applications No. 45 & 46 of 2018
In/and
First Appeal No.12 of 2018
Date of Institution: 08.01.2018
Date of Decision : 01.04.2019
1. Sukhwinder Singh s/o Sadhu Singh, R/o Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar, Street No.6, H.No.B9/784, District Faridkot.
2. Tejinder Singh s/o Sadhu Singh, R/o Shaheed Bhagat Singh
Nagar, Street No.6, H.No.B9/784, District Faridkot.
Appellants/Opposite party Nos.3&4.
Versus
1. Amita W/o Harbhagwan Dass, R/o Near Octroi No.7, Guru
Arjan Dev Nagar, District Faridkot, Punjab.
...........Respondent No.1/complainant
2. Kalpatru Buildtech Corporation Limited (KBCL India Ltd.)
through its Chairman i.e. Jai Kishan Rana Singh.
3. Vipan Yadav, Managing Director, Kalpatru Buildtech
Corporation Limited (KBCL India Ltd.).
.............Respondent Nos.2 &3/opposite party Nos.1&2
Appeal against order dated
17.08.2017 of District Consumer
Dispures Redressal Forum
Faridkot.
And
Application for condonation of
delay of 91 days in filing the
appeal.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Sh. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate For respondent No.1 : None For respondents No.2&3 : Ex parte ................................................... Misc. Applications No.45 & 46 of 2018 In/and 2 First Appeal No.12 of 2018 J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-M.A. No. 45 of 2018 (Delay)
This application has been filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 91 days in filing the appeal, as the appeal is barred by time of 91 days delay. It is contended in this application, filed by appellant for condonation of delay, that appellant No.1 left the job since July 2016 and went to his native village in Uttar Pradesh thereafter. He started seeking employment in Delhi and tried to contact his counsel before District Forum below, but received no proper guidance therefrom and appellant No.2 was employed on commission basis. Appellants came to know about the impugned order of District Forum only when appellant No.1 came to meet friends at District Forum Faridkot and contacted his counsel thereat. They have alleged that the above-referred delay of 91 days in this case was beyond their control and it be condoned.
2. Upon notice, respondent No.1 filed reply to this application and denied the contentions of appellants, as embodied in the application. It is averred in the reply by respondent No.1 that each days' delay has not been explained by the appellants and hence, the application put in by appellants for condonation of delay of 91 days in filing the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
3. Respondents No.2&3 were set ex parte in this appeal, vide order dated 29.05.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for appellant, as none appeared for respondent No.1 and respondents No.2&3 are ex parte in this case and we further proceed to decide this application for Misc. Applications No.45 & 46 of 2018 In/and 3 First Appeal No.12 of 2018 condonation of delay. It is apparent from perusal of impugned order of District Forum Faridkot dated 17.08.2017 that it was pronounced by District Forum in the presence of counsel for appellants- Sukhwinder Singh and Tejinder Singh namely Rajinder Singh Advocate and he represented them before District Forum below and his presence has been duly recorded on their behalf in the above order. This order was dispatched to appellants on 08.09.2017 and at the time, it can be taken that appellants received this order within weeks' period i.e. uptill 15.09.2017. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on 08.01.2018 before this Commission. Since one month period is liable to be excluded for filing the appeal and the terminus a quo in this case to file the appeal is with effect from 16.09.2017. The delay explained by appellants since 16.09.2017 till the date of filing the appeal 08.01.2018 is neither satisfactory, nor sufficient nor supported by any documents on the record. The appellants are not supposed to be lethargic over his matter pending before any Forum and are supposed to be vigilant about the same. If a party sleeps over the matter and imputes the blame due to his own inactivity to the others, it is not a valid ground to condone the delay. We are not convinced with the submissions of counsel for appellants, as projected in this application for condonation of delay.
5. The matter has also 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 Misc. Applications No.45 & 46 of 2018 In/and 4 First Appeal No.12 of 2018 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 time and again. Law of limitation operates somewhat rigorously. We find that a specified period for filing the appeal has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, being a Special Act and the very purpose of this Special Act would be defeated by condoning such stale matters over insufficient grounds.
6. In view of our above discussion and law laid down by Apex Court in above authority, it is not found to be a sufficient ground to condone the delay in this case, because a legal right has already vested in other side with the efflux of time in this case, which can be taken away only on proof of bona fide and sufficient grounds. Consequently, we do not find any sufficient ground in the application of condonation of delay of 91 days to condone it, 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. Appellants/OPs No.3&4 had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a Misc. Applications No.45 & 46 of 2018 In/and 5 First Appeal No.12 of 2018 crossed cheque/demand draft after expiry of period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, subject to stay order, if any.
9. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.
(J.S. KLAR) Presiding Judicial Member (Rajinder Kumar Goyal) Member April 01, 2019 DB