State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaspreet Singh vs Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt ... on 14 August, 2024
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.419 of 2024
In/and
First Appeal No.147 of 2024
Date of institution : 01.04.2024
Reserved on : 12.08.2024
Date of decision : 14.08.2024
Jaspreet Singh age about 33 years, son of Gurmeet Singh resident of
Village Jang, Tehsil Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. 8-B, SIPCOT
Industrial Estate, Oragadam Village, Singaperumal Koil Road,
Mattur(PO), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District
(631501) (Through its Managing Director, Tamilnadu).
2. Globe CV Pvt., Limited, 1, Delhi-Amritsar NHI, village
Mehandipur, Tehsil Khanna, Ludhiana District Ludhiana, Punjab-
141401, (Through its Manager)
3. Globe CV Pvt. Ltd., 2, Jammu Road, Near Rebook Showroom,
Sujanpur, Pathankot, District Pathankot, Punjab-
145023,(Through its Manager).
4. HDFC Bank Ltd., Circular Road, Near Sabji Mandi, District
Abohar, Punjab-152116.(Through its Branch Manager)
....Respondents/Opposite parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ferozepur in CC/990/2019
Quorum:-
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member FA No. 147 of 2024 2 Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Jeevaraj, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. G.S. Kahlon, Advocate For respondent No.2&3: Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate For respondent No.4 : Ex-parte KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER Misc. Application No.419 of 2024 (Delay) The applicant/appellant has filed this application alongwith appeal for condoning the delay of 632 days in filing the appeal on the ground that the applicant/complainant had contacted his counsel well within prescribed time of limitation in the month of May 2022. However, his counsel renovated his office at his new residence at Sector 80, Mohali in the first week of June, 2022 and the brief of the case was misplaced, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal has occurred. The applicant/appellant prayed for acceptance of the present application, as the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that in the application for condonation of delay, 'sufficient cause' has not even been pleaded or averred. Even no day to day explanation has been given by the applicant. After denying the other averments made in the application, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the application as well as the appeal filed by the applicant/appellant.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 & 3 has submitted that the explanation given by the applicant is not proper. The applicant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to explain delay of each day. After denying the other averments made in the FA No. 147 of 2024 3 application, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the present application as well as the appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. As per Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, 45 days period has been granted for filing the appeal, provided, if any, sufficient cause is given for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Although the sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act because it would vary from the facts and circumstances of each and every case. This time limit has been prescribed in the Act itself just to expedite the matter in granting the relief to the aggrieved consumers and this cannot be taken as a matter of right and the courts can exercise its powers with discretion to condone the delay with proper explanation.
6. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", 2011(14) SCC 578 whereby it has been held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay in the cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing the appeal and revision in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated petitions are to be entertained.
FA No. 147 of 2024 4
7. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case "Lanka Venkateshwarlu (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 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".
8. In the present case, the applicant/appellant has merely stated that he had contacted his counsel well within prescribed time of limitation in the month of May 2022, but due to renovation of office of his counsel, the brief of the case was misplaced, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal has occurred. The applicant has himself stated that he contacted his counsel within the prescribed time of limitation in the month of May 2022, which shows that he was well aware of the proceedings regarding filing of an appeal, but he was sleeping over his rights. If the brief was misplaced, then he could apply for the certified copies of documents before the District Commission. The applicant took an inordinate long delay of 632 days in filing the appeal despite the fact that he was very much aware of the proceedings and the same was in his complete knowledge. In such a scenario, we are of FA No. 147 of 2024 5 the opinion that the applicant is having a casual approach and has not dealt with the matter seriously. The explanation for the said delay is also not sufficient for condoning the delay. The very purpose of the Act would be defeated in case the delay is condoned without any sufficient ground. Consequently, we do not find any ground to condone the inordinate delay of 632 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay and the same is hereby dismissed.
Main Appeal
9. Since, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, hence the appeal is barred by time and is ordered to be dismissed in-limine as time barred.
(KIRAN SIBAL) PRESIDING MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER August 14, 2024 dv