State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank vs Sh. Sandeep Modgil on 16 December, 2008
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA MA No. 700/2008. Appeal No. 270/2008 Date of Decision 16.12.2008. ICICI Bank/Finance (Chaman Complex building, Mandi, District Mandi, HP as mentioned in order) Hotel Moon International, Chotta Shimla (filed through Sh. Saurav Negi, Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.) ..Appellant. Versus Sandeep Modgil So Sh. Manohar Lal R/o House No. 32/2 Purani, Mandi, HP. .Respondent.
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.
Whether Approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant. Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) MA No. 700/2008.
Reply to application for condonation of delay has been filed which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance record of the case has also been examined.
3. Appeal is barred by time as per own showing of the appellant. Impugned order was passed on 20.3.2007 in the presence of its learned counsel. Its copy was received by the learned counsel for the appellant. This is evident from the facts detailed in the application. Ground given for condonation of delay is, that the local representative handling Mandi Region at the relevant point of time was one Shri Gurprit Singh, Manager. He left the service of the bank in July, 2007, as such no process was initiated for the purpose of filing the appeal. There was no information with the bank regarding decision of the case. Impugned order came to the notice of the appellant when execution was levied.
4. The bank on consultation with the local lawyer found that the said matter was decided on 20.3.2007 and certified copy of the order was provided to the bank. As per own showing of the appellant there is delay of 17 months 8 days.
5. In this background prayer has been made for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
6. It is well known that no litigant stands to gain by filing a time barred appeal, to the contrary he runs the risk of getting his case thrown out, being barred by time. The approach of the courts has not to be pedantic while considering a case for condonation of delay. Reason being that courts are respected for doing substantial justice between the parties. However with a view to get the delay condoned all the necessary facts as well as circumstances have to be explained. In the absence of proper facts before the court, nothing can be presumed. Similarly a litigant need not explain each days delay. Thus even for taking a very liberal view of the provisions of law relating the condonation of delay, facts have to be clearly and sufficiently pleaded by a litigant like appellant in this case.
In the absence whereof delay cannot be condoned.
7. All the relevant facts necessary for allowing this application have been kept delightly vague. Copy of impugned order was admittedly received by the learned counsel for the appellant in March 2007. Whether the authorities concerned of the appellant-bank made any enquiry either from the learned counsel representing it before the District Forum below or from the local representative Mr. Gurprit Singh handling Mandi Region till July, 2007 when he left the job again there is not a word said in this behalf in the application. What were the papers handed over by Mr. Gurprit Singh, Manager while leaving the job, again there is again no mention in the application. In case he had not handed over any paper then the said fact should have found mention in the application itself and in case he handed over certain papers/records then the appellant was bound to state that the copy of the impugned order was not handed over in such record.
8. Another reason not to accept of the plea of the appellant for condonation of delay is, that this appeal has filed on 15.10.2008. A perusal of the impugned order shows that copy was applied for on 19.11.2007 it was prepared, compared, attested as well as delivered on 22.11.2007. What happened between this date and the date of the filing of the appeal, the application is totally silent. Mr. Verma could not explain anything on this aspect. Minimum that was expected of the appellant was to have stated that after delivery of copy to its learned counsel Mr. Amar Singh Thakur, Advocate what happened till the appeal was filed on 15.10.2008. There is not a murmur. As such even if for the sake of argument if time is to be extended, then at best a case is made out upto 22.11.2007.
Thereafter there is nothing on record giving any reasonable explanation why the appeal could not be filed till 15.10.2008.
9. At the risk of repetition it may be observed that even by taking a very liberal view, no case is made out for condonation of delay. As such keeping in view the above facts as set out in its application by the appellant no cause, muchless sufficient cause, for condonation of delay is made out for entertaining this application. Accordingly the same is dismissed. MA stands disposed of.
10. No other point is urged.
Appeal No. 270/2006.
Since delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, accordingly this appeal is ordered to be consigned to records alongwith all miscellaneous applications, and stands disposed of. Interim order(s) shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Shimla.
16th December, 2008. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
d.kZ* President.