State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals ... vs Ravinder Kumar And Others on 27 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 65 / 2007
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
having its Registered Office at
7, Magadhi Road, Bangalore - 560023 through its Managing Director
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
1. Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o late Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta
2. Smt. Anita Gupta W/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar
Both R/o Summal House, 94/4, Khanna Nagar
Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / Complainants
3. Liberal Consultancy & Software Services
A Unit of Grasim Industries Ltd. M.R.P.L.
Vallabh Dass Building, Plot No. 15
Road No. 10, 2nd Phase, MIDC
Andheri East, Mumbai - 400093
4. Shri G.M. Trustee Company Limited through
J.M. Mutual Fund through Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.
Mittal Court, B-Wing, 224, Nariman Point
Mumbai - 400021
5. Haridwar Share Exchange Company
Shop No. 3, Durga Complex
Opposite Shivji Palace, Haridwar
6. Fly King Courier Services
New Market, Subhash Cloth Market
Saharanpur through Arora Courier Services
Proprietor Sh. Rakesh Arora, Hotel Palace
Sadhu Bela Marg, Shrawan Nath Nagar
Haridwar
......Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 / Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3 to 5
Sh. Tarun Matta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. R.K. Chaurasia, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
None for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
2
Dated: 27/08/2012
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 26.08.2002 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 224 of 1996, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant after a lapse of 4 years and 169 days. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit of Sh. B. Sukumar, Company Secretary of the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - complainants has filed objections against the delay condonation application, stating therein that no sufficient cause or ground for such a long delay has been mentioned by the appellant in the delay condonation application and that the appeal has been preferred with an inordinate delay of 4 years and 169 days and hence the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on delay condonation application and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
5. In the affidavit filed along with the delay condonation application, it has been averred that full and detailed facts have been stated in the memorandum of appeal, which are correct and the same be read and treated as part of the said affidavit. It has further been 3 averred that there is no delay on the part of the appellant. But no specific reason / ground for such a long delay in filing the appeal has been assigned in the affidavit filed along with the delay condonation application. We have also perused the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant. In the memorandum of appeal, not a single word has been stated regarding delay in filing the appeal.
6. The case in hand shows total callousness and absence of serious concern on the part of the appellant. No reason / ground has been mentioned by the appellant as to why such a long delay was caused in preferring the appeal against the impugned order. It is important to mention here that the appellant had the knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the complainants before the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint and the appellant also participated in the said proceedings and filed the written statement. The Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Civil No. 1427 of 2011 decided on 15.04.2010 in Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh and another Vs. Kanwaljit Singh Kochhar and another, has observed:
"In our view, the explanation given by the petitioners for delayed filing of the applications for condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and keeping in view the fact that for filing appeals against the orders of the State Commission (Section 19) and the National Commission (Section 23) passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the limitation is 30 days only, we do not find any justification to entertain their prayer for condonation of delay."
7. The period of limitation provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing the appeal before the State Commission against the order made by the District Forum is also 30 days from the date of the order. The Hon'ble National Commission in 4 its decision given in the case of Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Nirmaljit Kaur and another; III (2012) CPJ 75 (NC), has declined to condone the delay. In the reported case, delay of over three and a half years was sought to be explained as caused by involvement of 'various channels' in according sanction. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that there is nothing on record to show how many approvals were required in reaching a decision to file the appeal and the time consumed was substantially more than reasonable. The Hon'ble National Commission in another decision rendered in the case of Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Sheo Prakash Gupta and another; III (2012) CPJ 227 (NC), has declined to condone the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal. It was held that sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period has not been shown. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Ketan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Dattaraya Namjoshi; III (2012) CPJ 60 (NC), has held that a person who seeks exercise of judicial discretion of Court or Tribunal in his favour in the matter of condonation of delay, must explain to the satisfaction of Court / Tribunal / Forum that he had "sufficient cause" which prevented him from filing the proceedings within prescribed period of limitation. He must explain each day's delay and show that delay was not intentional or willful which will entitle him to seek judicial discretion in his favour.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the definite view that the appellant has not been able to explain / justify such a long delay in preferring the instant appeal and as stated above, no ground / cause for such an enormous delay in filing the appeal has even been mentioned by the appellant in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application or the memorandum of appeal and, as such, 5 the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected and consequently, the appeal merits dismissal.
9. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.08.2002 is also dismissed, being barred by time. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K