State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karamjit Singh vs Krishna Auto Sales on 21 December, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Appl. No.930 of 2011
In/and
First Appeal No.597of 2011.
Date of Institution: 06.04.2011.
Date of Decision: 21.12.2011.
Karamjit Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh, R/o village Nathowal, Tehsil Raikot,
Ludhiana.
.....Applicant/Appellant.
Versus
1. Krishna Auto Sales, G.T. Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana through
authorized signatory.
2. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. A-1/1, Five Star Shendra Industrial Area,
Tq. Aurangabad, District Aurangabad 431201 through authorized
signatory.
3. M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 147,
Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through authorized signatory.
...Respondents.
Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay
of 194 days
In/And
First Appeal No.597 of 2011 against the order
dated 03.08.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the applicant/appellant: Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate. For respondents no.1&2 : Sh. A.S. Bakshi, Advocate. For respondent no.3 : Sh. Maninder Singh, Advocate for Sh. P.M. Goyal, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Applicant/appellant-Karamjit Singh (hereinafter called as "the applicant") has filed this application for condonation of delay of 194 days in filing the present appeal.Misc. Appl. No.930 of 2011 2
In/and First Appeal No.597 of 2011
2. It was submitted that the applicant received the certified copy of the order dated 03.08.2010 on 25.08.2010 and the complaint was allowed against respondent no.3. The applicant was under the impression that respondent no.3 will make the payment as per the order dated 03.08.2010 and, as such, there was no necessity to file the appeal against the order dated 03.08.2010. The appellant also contacted respondent no.3 number of times for payment, but without informing the applicant, respondent no.3 filed the appeal before this Commission and the applicant received the notice dated 16.02.2011 from this Commission and came to know that respondent no.3 has filed the appeal. The applicant was left with no option, except to file the appeal to protect his right. He engaged the counsel in the first week of April, 2011 and filed the present appeal without any further delay. The delay of 194 days in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to unavoidable circumstances, and prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal be decided on merits.
3. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the averments made in the application are vague and do not justify the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal. It appears that the present appeal has been filed, to counter the claim made by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. in appeal no.1939 of 2010 which in itself is no ground for condonation of delay, and prayed that the application may be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. The only stand taken by the applicant is that the delay occurred due to the reasons that the District Forum passed the order on 03.08.2010 against respondent-Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. and he was under the impression that the payment will be made by the said insurance company. The applicant has never thought of filing the appeal against the order of the District Forum and on knowing about the filing of the appeal by the Misc. Appl. No.930 of 2011 3 In/and First Appeal No.597 of 2011 respondent-insurance company, the applicant woke up from a long slumber and just filed the appeal as a counter-blast and filed the application, taking it for granted that the delay will be condoned, forgetting that it is not the right of the applicant to get the delay condoned, but the delay can only be condoned when there are sufficient reasons and the delay occurred due to the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. The delay cannot be condoned in the routine manner.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others", 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-
"It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence".
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs. Vs State of A.P. & Others", 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para-26(relevant portion) observed as under:-
"Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly". Misc. Appl. No.930 of 2011 4
In/and First Appeal No.597 of 2011
8. In view of the above discussion, the application filed by the applicant for condonation of delay of 194 days in filing the present appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed.
Main Case
9. As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, the appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 12.12.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member December 21, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)