Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Balbir Kaur vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. on 8 September, 2015

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

                       Misc. Application No.1990 of 2014
                                  In/and
                          First Appeal No. 1290 of 2014

                                Date of institution : 19.09.2014
                                Date of decision : 08.09.2015

Mrs. Balbir Kaur wife of Shri Narinder Singh, Resident of Village

Bara, Post Office Dinanagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, Punjab.


                                        .......Appellant-Complainant
                              Versus

  1. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., 5th Floor, Mahindra Towers, G.M.

     Bhosale Marg Worli, Mumbai.

  2. Universal Motors, G.T. Road, Hussainpura, Amritsar 143 001,
     Punjab.

  3. Goel Motors Private Limited, B-55, Phase-VI, Industrial Area,

     Opp. Verka Milk Plant, Mohali, Punjab.

  4. Makkar Motor Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar Phagwara Highway, Near

     Pragpur Octroi, Jalandhar, Punjab-144 001.

                                ........Respondents-Opposite Parties

                       First Appeal against the order dated
                       4.8.2014 of the District Consumer
                       Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-

     Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
             Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member

Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Shri K.S. Cheema, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Shri Vaibhav Narang, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Ex parte.

For respondent No.3: None.

For respondent No.4: Shri R.K. Bhatti, Advocate.

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :

M.A. No.1990 of 2014:

This application has been filed by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It has been averred therein that the counsel engaged for the matter in Jalandhar was in possession of all the documents pertaining to the case and it took a long time for the appellant to procure those documents and she was ignorant of the legal technicalities involved and took some time to engage a counsel in Chandigarh to file the appeal.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4.8.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was dismissed as barred by time. In fact application was filed by the complainant for condoning the delay in filing the complaint, which was dismissed resulting in the dismissal of the complaint as barred by time. The complainant must have come to know about the technicality of filing the complaint/appeal in time, as she had filed the complaint after the expiry of the limitation and along with that complaint she filed an application for condoning the delay. No doubt, there is delay of only 9 days but by going into the merits of the appeal itself we do not think that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning that delay. As per the contents of the application filed by the appellant before the District Forum, for condoning the delay in filing the complaint, she had approached the District Forums at First Appeal No.1290 of 2014 3 Gurdaspur and Mohali with the same complaint and both those District Forums dismissed the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter she filed that complaint before the District Forum at Jalandhar. The District Forum, Gurdaspur dismissed the complaint on 2.7.2012 whereas the District Forum at Mohali dismissed the complaint on 17.4.2013. The complaint before the District Forum, Jalandhar, was filed on 24.4.2014 i.e. after more than one year. The cause for that delay, as disclosed in the application, was that the husband of the complainant got ill and was hospitalized for few months, as he was suffering from dengue and subsequently her son was hospitalized for the same disease. She has annexed the documents pertaining to her husband and son with the present appeal and the same consists of the report given by Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. As per that report, the husband of the complainant was found to be suffering from dengue on 25.10.2013 and her son Ramanpreet Singh was found suffering from the same disease on 5.11.2013. There is no explanation as to why the complaint was not filed from April 2013 to October 2013, when her husband and son were not suffering from any such disease. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any merit in the appeal itself. As to why the appeal was not filed before the husband or son of the appellant had fallen ill, when the period of limitation had already expired before that, no explanation has been given. The appellant has miserably failed to prove any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The application is dismissed accordingly.

Main Appeal:

3. In view of the dismissal of the application for condoning the delay, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by time.

4. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) September 08, 2015 MEMBER Bansal