State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Sagu Alias Salagram vs Br. Us Manager Bank Of Baroda /Ors on 27 August, 2009
APPEAL NO: 390/2008 Sh.Sagu alias Salagram (deceased complainant) his LR Radheyshyam s/o Salagram r/o village Semlapur Teh. Pratapgarh Distt. Chittorgarh Complainant-appellant Vs. 1. Br.Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Gadola Teh.Pratapgarh, Distt. Chittorgarh. 2. Tehsildar, Teh.Pratapgarh (Raj.) Opposite parties-respondents 27.8.09 Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethia-Member
Mr.Manish Mathur counsel for the appellant BY THE STATE COMMISSION Heard at admission stage.
This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant with a delay of 151 days against order dated 31.8.07 passed 2 by the District Forum,Chittorgarh in complaint no. 309/06 by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed with costs at Rs.5000/- inter alia holding that since the complainant had not re-paid the amount of loan taken by him from respondent no.1 bank, therefore, if on that ground respondent no.1 bank had not issued No Due Certificate in favour of the complainant appellant, the respondent bank could not be held guilty for deficiency in service.
2. Aggrieved from the said order dated 31.8.07 passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant on 29.2.08 with a delay of 151 days and alongwith the appeal an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed.
3. It may further be stated here that when the impugned order was passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh, the learned counsel for the complainant appellant was present.
4. It may be stated here that in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, it has been stated by the complainant appellant that the time was spent in making consultation with the lawyer and thus it has been prayed that delay be condoned.
5. In this case since there is an inordinate delay of 151 days, therefore, the complainant appellant had to explain the delay made thereafter day by day. In other words, in showing sufficient cause for condoning delay the party may be called upon to explain for the whole of the delay covered by the 3 period between the last day prescribed for filing the appeal and the day on which the appeal is filed.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1962 SC 36 has observed in the following manner:
" Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large majority of case-law has grown around section 5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accused to a part by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every day's delay...."
7. Taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the present case are examined, it clearly appears that delay in the present case was such a delay that could not be condoned though this Commission is of the view that condoning the delay in filing the appeal should be liberally construed but delay of 151 days could not be said to be such a delay which could be condoned. Had there would have been a delay of 20 or 50 days etc., the position would have been different one.
8. For the reasons stated above, since in the present case ground of delay which has been taken by the complainant appellant could not be said to be proper and reasonable ground and it could not be termed as sufficient cause for not 4 filing the appeal in time. The proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Commission and this aspect is missing in this case.
9. Thus, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant appellant has miserably failed to substantiate his case for presenting the appeal after such a long delay and for that reason, application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be rejected and the same is rejected and when the application for condonation of delay is rejected, the appeal filed by the complainant appellant is also dismissed as being time barred.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the complainant appellant is dismissed as being time barred.
Member President