State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lord Shiva Co-Operative Housing ... vs Capt Vishnu Bhagwan Sharma on 17 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1029 of 2010 Date of Institution:20.07.2010 Date of Decision:17.08.2010 Lord Shiva Co-operative Housing Society Plot No.12, Sector-10A, Gurgaon, through its President & Secretary of the Society. Appellant Versus. Capt Vishnu Bhagwan Sharma s/o Sh. O.P. Sharma, r/o 76, Mahilpur, New Delhi. .Respondent Present:- Mr. Rohit Goswami, Adv. for the Appellant. BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member O R D E R
JUSTICE, R.S. MADAN, PRESIDENT:-
Along with the appeal, appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the present appeal before this Commission. However, as per the office report, there is a delay of 165 days in filing the appeal. The plea taken by the applicant/appellant in the application for condonation of delay of 198 days is as under:-
2. That the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by learned Forum, Gurgaon is ex parte order against present appellant, the present appellant were not aware of above said order as there was account of settlement of out of the forum on receiving the genuine payment the appellant felt relax considering that the complainant will withdraw the complaint as no disputes stand in the way and unfortunately on 6.4.2009 the appellant was proceeded ex parte which resulted into passing order dated 30.12.2009 and same was received by present appellant by post.
3. That on receiving the present appellant have filed application for setting aside order on 27.1.2010 without any delay before District Forum, Gurgaon in which notice has been issued to the complainant and complainant has filed reply to the application and the forum has dismissed the application of present appellant on 4.6.2010 and the order of the same was dispatched on 18.6.2010 after obtaining the order the present appellant contacted Mr. Sharad Yadav, Advocate to file appeal and the appeal is filed without any delay on 20.7.2010 without any delay and delay 198 has been occurred.
It has been expressly provided in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that any person aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of period of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the stipulated period. The expression sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, as it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time while examining the question of condonation of delay, it has to be kept in mind that it is the duty of the condoning authority to record satisfaction of the explanation submitted as to whether it is reasonable and satisfactory which is essential pre-requisite for condonation of delay. It is equally well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity as well as on the ground of generosity.
As regards the ground taken in the first application it would transpire that totally vague and ambiguous assertion has been made. The only ground mentioned in the application is that the applicant has filed the application for setting aside of the ex parte judgment, which was decided by the District Forum on 4.6.2010. The plea taken by the appellant on the face of it appears to be not sufficient for condonation of delay.
We have also taken notice of the case titled U.P. Avasevam Vikas Parishad & Another Vs. Smt. Satyawati reported in III (1999) CPJ 217 wherein complainant has prayed for the condonation of the period spent in processing the application for setting aside ex parte judgment. However, the application was dismissed with the observation that there is no provision in Act to claim exclusion of time spent in different proceedings.
The ratio of the Satyawati case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly in the present case also, the appellant in stead of filing appeal against the ex parte judgment, has preferred the application for setting aside the said order, despite of the fact that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act to recall or review its own order. In this view of the matter, the ground stated in the application does not constitute sufficient cause so as to condone the delay in filing the appeal as prayed for in the application from the side of the appellant. Therefore, the application for condoantion of delay in filing the appeal is rejected. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as time barred.
The statutory amount of Rs.25000/-
deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal is ordered to be released to the appellant in each case after proper receipt, identification and verification.
18th August, 2010 Justice R.S. Madan.
President.
Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member