State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & ... vs Surendra Singh Koli on 20 July, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 / 2013
1. Chairman, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Jeevan Bharati Building, Tower - II
124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi
2. Company Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Jeevan Bharati Building, Tower - II
124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi
3. Dr. A.K. Balyan, Director (HR)
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Jeevan Bharati Building, Tower - II
124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi
...... Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Surendra Singh Koli S/o Sh. D.S. Koli
R/o A-10/6, ONGC Colony
Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Sanjay Gaur, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
None for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 20/07/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 111 of 2010. The appeal has been preferred with a delay of 101 days' and for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appellants have moved an application for condonation of delay (Paper No. 32) supported with 2 an affidavit of Sh. V.N. Murthy, Deputy Company Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, New Delhi (Paper Nos. 33 to 35).
2. In the affidavit filed by the appellants in support of the application for condonation of delay, it has been averred that the consumer complaint was decided by the District Forum per order dated 07.11.2012. Sh. Tarun Matta, Advocate was engaged by the appellants - opposite parties for defending the consumer complaint on their behalf before the District Forum. The written statement was filed by the appellants and the official(s) of the Corporation also attended the District Forum on several dates. On the date of arguments, the counsel for the appellants was present before the District Forum and submitted his arguments, but from the perusal of the impugned order dated 07.11.2012, it transpired that during the course of arguments, the counsel without taking any permission and without any authority, submitted his no objection and did not seek any permission from the company. The counsel applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 27.11.2012 and through his letter dated 23.01.2013, forwarded the same to the company. On receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order, the Dehradun office of the company forwarded the same for further action and compliance. The Company Secretary observed that the company has acted within the four corners of the Companies Act and once the decision regarding forfeiture of the shares has been taken by the Board of Directors of the company, there can not be any occasion to submit no objection regarding refund of the allotment money to respondent and it was decided to file an appeal against the impugned order. The decision to file the appeal was received by the Legal Department, Dehradun, which was communicated to the counsel on 07/08.03.2013. The draft appeal was sent to the Delhi office of the company for vetting and thereafter the appeal was preferred. There was no intentional delay in 3 filing the appeal. On the above grounds, the delay in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned by the appellants.
3. None appeared on behalf of respondent - complainant inspite of sufficient service through publication. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on delay condonation application and perused the record.
4. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the impugned order was passed by the District Forum on 07.11.2012, but the certified copy of the same was applied by the learned counsel for the appellants on 27.11.2012 and the same was sent by the learned counsel for the appellants to the company after a period of about two months' through his letter dated 23.01.2013. There is no explanation as to why the certified copy was sent by the counsel so late. This shows that there was total inaction on the part of the counsel for the appellants. Even after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order on 23.01.2013, the present appeal was filed by the appellants before this Commission on 19.03.2013, i.e., after about two months' and for this delay, the appellants have taken the ground of procedural delay in taking administrative decisions in the matter to file an appeal against the impugned order.
5. It is now well settled that on account of negligence of the counsel, the party can not get any benefit and any laches on the part of the counsel in prosecuting the matter, is to be treated as negligence / laches on the part of the concerned party itself. In the case of Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. Vs. Jitender Mohan Bhasin and others; III (2012) CPJ 583 (NC), there was delay of 244 days' in filing the revision petition. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the petitioner has failed to offer convincing rationale 4 of reasons in support of his application. It was also held that there was gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides are imputable to the petitioner and the delay was not condoned. In the case of Vinod Kumar Patel Vs. Sambit Kumar Das; III (2012) CPJ 703 (NC), it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that it is well settled that qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant's agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay.
6. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of HUDA Vs. Sunil Gupta; IV (2012) CPJ 360 (NC), has declined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. In the said case, the delay of 36 days' in filing the revision petition was not condoned and it was held that the procedural delay is not the sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Vishnu Chand Sharma; IV (2012) CPJ 676 (NC), has held that the only explanation that file was moved from table to table to get permission to file petition is not sufficient and the delay of 169 days' in filing the revision petition was not condoned.
7. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Jain International Sansthan Vs. Krish City, Bhiwadi and others; III (2016) CPJ 2 (NC), has declined to condone the delay of 168 days' in filing the revision petition and has held that no lucid excuse is forthcoming from the petitioner to justify the delay in filing the revision petition. It was held that the case is barred by time. In the said decision, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013; Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, decided on 17.12.2013, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the order of the 5 Hon'ble National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days'.
8. The perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Forum shows that the learned counsel for the appellants - opposite parties appearing before the District Forum has submitted his no objection regarding refund of allotment money with interest to the respondent - complainant and on the said basis, the District Forum has passed the impugned order. The appellants have also admitted this fact in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application that their counsel had submitted no objection before the District Forum, although he was not authorised to submit his no objection. Thus, it can safely be said that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is a consent order and it is also a settled law that no appeal lies against a consent order.
9. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have not been able to satisfactorily explain / justify such a long and inordinate delay of 101 days' in filing the appeal and we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal is not liable to be condoned and the application for condonation of delay warrants rejection.
10. Application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K