State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Huda vs Sunita Devi on 29 August, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.930 of 2017 Date of Institution: 03.08.2017 Date of Decision: 29.08.2017 Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar. .....Appellant Versus Sunita Devi age about 46 years W/o Sh.Mahabir Parshad, R/o H.NO.1069, Urban Estate-II, HUDA, Hisar. .....Respondent CORAM: Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. Present: Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate counsel for appellant. O R D E R
R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Appellants have filed this application for condonation of delay of 292 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged that copy of order was prepared on 15.09.2016 and thereafter the same was received by O.P. The process for filing the appeal before this Commission was initiated immediately and in this process a delay of 292 (288 days as in application) days occurred in the filing of appeal. Delay on their part was not intentional.
2. Arguments heard. File perused.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued as per facts mentioned in the application, it is clear that appellant was pursuing the matter bonafidely and delay is not intentional and may be condoned.
4. This argument is of no avail. Since appellant admitted that it received certified copy in the month of September, 2016, but, could not file the appeal in time. The reason stated in the application is not plausible.
5. A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is "Sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.
6. The inordinate delay of 292 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;
"Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay."
The Hon'ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 -Appeal -Maintainability - Limitation -Condonation of delay- Resjudicata -Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days -Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal - Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party -Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed -Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court."
In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed:
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."
In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;
"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 held as under;
"We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time."
In (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. Hon'ble Apex Court has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.
In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras".
7. Even otherwise also, case of the appellant is not good on merits. Learned District Forum has directed to pay interest on the delayed payment. The findings of the learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.
8. Taking into consideration the pleas raised by appellant in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law that if case is not good on merits delay cannot be condoned, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone delay of 292 days in filing appeal. Hence application filed for condonation of delay as well as appeal are dismissed in limine.
9. The statutory amount of Rs.15487/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.
August 29th, 2017 Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench S.K.