State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bhl Forex & Finlease Ltd. vs Gulshan Kalra on 1 October, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 01-10-2012 Case No. FA-09/463 (Arising from the order dated 13.1.09 passed in Complaint Case No. 302/02 by the District Consumer Forum, New Delhi). 1. BHL FOREX & FINLEASE LTD. -APPELLANTS Through its Director Sh. Gurvinder Singh Suri, 6, Mohan Singh Palace, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 2. Sh. Gurvinder Singh Suri, @ Sh. Lucky Suri, Director M/s BHL FOREX & FINLEASE LTD. 6, Mohan Singh Palace, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Versus SH. GULSHAN KALRA - RESPONDENT S/o Late Sh. D.L. Kalra, R/o SD-353, Tower Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi 110034. CORAM : JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI - President MS SALMA NOOR - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? SALMA NOOR (ORAL) ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13-1-2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 302/02 wherein the District Forum directed the Appellant Respondent to issue NOC to the complainant and the Form as demanded immediately after when the complainant deposit with the OP the balance amount Rs. 12,840/-, Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and Rs. 10,000 towards cost of limitation.
2. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for condonation of delay has also been filed.
3. We have heard Ms. Hitakshi, Proxy for the Counsel for the Appellant and Sh. Puneet Tondon, Counsel for the Respondent at the admission stage.
4. Appellants submitted in Para 14 of the appeal that they have been served with the summons of the execution petition filed by the respondent/complainant in the office of the appellant company sometimes in the month of June, 2009 and that from the bare perusal of the copy of the award annexed by the respondent/complainant along with their execution petition is apparent that they have managed to procure the copy of the award marked to the appellant number one company. The appellants respectfully submit that they have not received any copy of the award from the Ld. District Forum as per rules. The appellants prayed to accept the present appeal with costs throughout and may further be pleased to set aside the impugned award dated 13.1.2009 in the complaint no. OC/302/2002, thereby, dismissing the complaint of the respondent.
5. There is a delay of 247 days. The reason given for this delay by the applicant/appellant is that he was not in knowledge of the impugned order dated 13.1.2009 and that they have not received any copy of the award from Ld. District Forum as per rules. The applicants/appellants came to know about the impugned order only in the month of June 2009 when the appellants have been served with the summons of the execution petition filed by the respondent/complainant in the office of the appellant company. The Law of Limitation calls for explanation for each day delay. After expiry of the period of limitation, an explanation for delay has to be rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable; merely stating that the delay occurred as they have not received any copy of the award from the ld. District Forum as per rules is not sufficient to condone the delay. The reason given therefore is wholly insufficient and consequently unacceptable. The application for condonation of delay, is therefore, rejected.
7. As the application for condonation of delay is rejected, the appeal is also stands dismissed, being time barred, at the admission stage.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
10. The FDR, if any, be returned to the appellant as per rules.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI) PRESIDENT (SALMA NOOR) MEMBER rn