State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Basant Lal, on 13 May, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Miscellaneous Application No. 892 of 2014
in/and
First Appeal No. 495 of 2014
Date of institution: 28.4.2014
Date of Decision: 13.5.2014
1. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its
Chairman/Administrator.
2. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana through its Executive
Officer.
.....Applicants/Appellants/Opposite parties
Versus
Basant Lal, aged 80 years, son of Shri Ram Ditta Mal, 157, Atam Nagar,
Ludhiana.
.....Respondent/Complainant
Misc. Application for condonation of delay of
255 days in filing the appeal.
In Re:
First Appeal against the order dated 11.6.2013
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Yogesh Saini, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellants/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as "the opposite parties") have filed the present appeal against the order dated 11.6.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No.748 dated 10.9.2012 vide which 2 Misc. Application No. 892 of 2014 in/and FIRST APPEAL NO. 495 OF 2014 the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant(hereinafter referred as 'the complainant') was allowed and the demand of Rs. 58,800/- raised by the OP from the complainant vide letter dated 27.5.2013 was quashed. Ops were directed to execute and registered the sale deed qua Flat No. 157, Atam Nagar, Ludhiana in favour of the complainant, subject to completion of all the formalities and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
Miscellaneous Application No. 892 of 2014
2. Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed to condone the delay of 255 days in filing the appeal stating that the order was passed on 11.6.2013. Same was despatched by the office of the learned District Forum on 17.7.2013 and was received in the office of the appellant on 25.7.2013 and a letter dated 30.7.2013 was written to the Director, Local Self Government Department, Punjab, Chandigarh to appoint advocate for filing of the appeal and they are approved the name of Sh. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate. Appeal was prepared by him on 1.9.2013 and the same was to be filed on 2.9.2013. In September, 2013, the brief was taken to the High Court as Executive Officer of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana was called in the High Court for attestation of the affidavit to be attached alongwith the appeal. However, he could not reach the High Court on 2.9.2013. Then Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Executive officer, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana came on 20.9.2013 for getting the affidavit attested but brief of the 3 Misc. Application No. 892 of 2014 in/and FIRST APPEAL NO. 495 OF 2014 undersigned counsel was got mis-placed although the affidavit was attested on 20.9.2013, therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time, as a result there was a delay of 255 days. It has been stated that delay is not intentional, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned. It is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana.
3. In case we go through the application, the main plea in the application is that on 20.9.2013, Rajesh Kumar, Executive officer had come to Chandigarh and got mis-placed the file in the High Court, although affidavits were got attested. In case we go through the certified copy of the order, placed with the appeal file it is the original certified copy, which was despatched by the learned District Forum on 17.7.2013. In case the brief of the counsel was mis-placed then how the appellant/counsel for the appellant is in possession of the certified copy of the order despatched by the learned District Forum to the appellant. There is no reference in application that after loss of the brief any new copy was applied for. Even the affidavit of Rajesh Kumar is dated 20.9.2013. Normally all the documents remained in one brief. In case the affidavits are with the appellant then how the other documents were lost. In these circumstances, the story of the loss of the brief seems to be concocted one to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In case the brief was lost on 20.9.2013, the appeal was filed on 28.4.2014 what efforts were taken by the appellants during this period has not been explained. It has been held 4 Misc. Application No. 892 of 2014 in/and FIRST APPEAL NO. 495 OF 2014 by the Hon'ble National Commission as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court that there should be sufficient cause for condoning the delay otherwise the delay should not be condoned as a matter of right. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in case "Jagmal Vs Land Acquisition Collector & Others, 2009(2) RCR (Civil)-349 (P&H)" that:-
"Proof of sufficient cause is condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay .............".
4. In case "N. Balakrishan Versus M. Krishnamurthy", 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 578, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"the length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria.
5. Hon'ble National Commission in its recent decision in case "A.V. Sreedharan Vs. M.V. Narayanan", CPJ 2012 684 (NC) held that object of expeditious adjudication of consumer dispute will get defeated if the application is entertained when no cogent reason is given in the application for condonation of delay.
6. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Versus Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.", 2013(2) CPR 306 (SC) in para No. 13 as follows:-
"13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red- tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law 5 Misc. Application No. 892 of 2014 in/and FIRST APPEAL NO. 495 OF 2014 shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay."
7. It was so discussed by the Hon'ble National Commission in "M/s Arihant Builders & Ors. Versus Gaurav Anand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.", 2012(4) CPR 487 (NC) that it was settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Victor Albuquerque v. Saraswat Co-operation Bank Ltd.", AIR 1988 (Bom.) 346 that:-
"where the facts showing clear negligence of party during entire period of limitation and no sufficient cause sustained for delay in filing appeal, the delay cannot be condoned."
8. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the applicants fail to disclose the sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal, as such, the application for condonation of delay of 255 days is hereby dismissed.
MAIN CASE 9 Since the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, First Appeal No. 495 of 2014 also stands dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.
10. The arguments in this application were heard on 8.5.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
11. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft 6 Misc. Application No. 892 of 2014 in/and FIRST APPEAL NO. 495 OF 2014 after the expiry of 45 days, subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
12. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
May 13, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram)
as Member