State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Virendra Goel vs Genins India Ltd. And Another on 6 August, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 120 / 2016
Sh. Virendra Goel S/o late Sh. Vilayti Ram Goel
R/o Near Hills View Petrol Pump
Bareilly Road, Haldwani
District Nainital
...... Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. Genins India Limited
B-127, Sector - 2
Noida (U.P.) through its Manager
2. National Insurance Company Limited
Branch Haldwani through its Branch Manager
...... Respondents / Opposite Parties
Sh. Nitin Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for Respondent No. 1
Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 06/08/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 139 of 2010. The appeal has been preferred with a delay of 1 year 8 months' and 19 days' and for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay (Paper Nos. 58 to
60) supported with an affidavit of the appellant (Paper No. 61). The affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the delay condonation application is a short affidavit, wherein the contents of the appeal as 2 well as delay condonation application have only been verified and no averment has been made on oath.
2. In the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant, it has been stated that in the month of November, 2011, the appellant - complainant filed his replication in the consumer complaint and since then the matter remained pending before the District Forum sometimes due to resolution of the Bar Association and sometimes for want of Presiding Officer of the District Forum and, as such, the appellant could not do proper pairvi and missed some dates and even could not inform his counsel about the next date of hearing fixed in the consumer complaint. After joining of the new Presiding Officer of the District Forum, the learned counsel for the appellant inquired about the status of the consumer complaint, whereupon he came to know that the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint vide order dated 20.08.2014 for want of prosecution. On 26.09.2014, the learned counsel for the appellant obtained the certified copy of the impugned order and tried to contact the appeal in order to inform him about the dismissal of the consumer complaint for non-prosecution, but the appellant could not be informed at that point of time. Sh. S. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, then sent his clerk Sh. Manoj Rawat at the residence of the appellant in the month of November, 2014, but he was out of station and the house was found locked. In the month of December, 2014, the said counsel again instructed his clerk to visit the residence of the appellant and obtain the mobile number of the appellant. The mobile number of the appellant was obtained by the clerk from the wife of the appellant. The said counsel then informed the appellant about the dismissal of the consumer complaint and advised him to file an appeal before this Commission. The appellant visited Dehradun in the month of February, 2015 and on reference met 3 Sh. Nitin Kumar, Advocate, who drafted the appeal. While preparing the appeal, the said Advocate found that certain documents were missing from the file and, as such, he requested the appellant to furnish those documents. The appellant contacted his counsel at Haldwani for providing the required documents. Due to shifting of the office of the said counsel, the record of the disposed matters was consigned to some other place and it took some time for tracing out the case file, which caused further delay. The said documents came to be found in the last week of June, 2015, which were then made available to Sh. Nitin Kumar, Advocate. After finalizing the appeal, Sh. Nitin Kumar, Advocate requested the appellant to visit Dehradun again for the purpose of attestation and verification of the affidavit, but due to ill health, the appellant could not come to Dehradun. The appellant remained busy in his treatment. The appellant visited Dehradun in the month of November, 2015, but due to strike of lawyers, the affidavit could not be attested at that point of time. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant fell critically ill and the appellant remained busy in her treatment and had to go to New Delhi for the purpose of consultation at higher centre. The appellant also fell ill due to constant mental tension. The appellant came to Dehradun on 08.06.2016. There is no deliberate delay in filing the appeal. On the above grounds, the delay in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned by the appellant.
3. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2 on delay condonation application and perused the record.
4. The appellant has very callously tried to explain such a long delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order was passed by the District Forum on 20.08.2014 and the certified copy of the same was 4 obtained by the learned counsel for the appellant after about a month thereof. After obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order, the counsel for the appellant could not contact him till December, 2014, i.e., for a period of about three months'. Thereafter also, the appellant did not take prompt action in the matter in order to file the appeal before this Commission. The appellant came to Dehradun in the month of February, 2015, i.e., after about two months' from coming to know about the impugned order. The required papers came to be found in the month of June, 2015. For the period from November, 2015 to 08.06.2016, there is also no justified / sufficient explanation coming from the side of the appellant. Merely because there was strike of lawyers, it can not be said that the affidavit could not be attested. The ground of illness of the appellant as well as his wife is also not sufficient for justification the delay for the period from November, 2015 to 08.06.2016. It would not be out of place to mention here that the appellant - complainant was also negligent in prosecuting the consumer complaint before the District Forum. The impugned order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the District Forum shows that on the said date, none was present on behalf of the appellant - complainant. On the last two dates also, there was no representation from the side of the appellant - complainant. In the said circumstances, the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint in default of the appellant - complainant.
5. 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 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 5 condoned. 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 Hon'ble National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days'.
6. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain / justify such a long and inordinate delay of 1 year 8 months' and 19 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.
7. 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