H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

----

FIRST APPEAL NO.42/2008.

DATE OF DECISION: 10.3.2009.



In the matter of:



1. The Gautam Automobiles, 12/5-Mathura Road, Sarain Chowk, Faridabad-121003 through its Deputy Manager Sh. V.S. Aggarwal, S/O Sh. Hiral Lal.

2. Spark Automobiles, Zirakpur, Punjab (Chandigarh), through its partner Sh. A.K. Grover, S/O Sh. C.L. Grover.

… … Appellants.



Versus



Smt. Saroj Devi, W/O Gopal Krishan Dass, H.No.58/9, Devi Nagar, Paonta Sahib, presently H.No.8/10, Near Rattan Cinema, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

… … Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting? No



For the Appellants: None.

For the respondent: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



O R D E R



Justice Arun Kumar Goel ( Retd.), President (Oral).



M.A. No.117/2008





1. This case was called on its turn in the morning but was passed over as none appeared for the appellants. It was again called out alongwith other passed over cases when learned Counsel for the respondent was present but no one was present on behalf of the appellants. For the third time it was called out when list was exhausted and passed over cases have also been finished. Except Mr. Kanwar, no other Counsel was present. In these circumstances, we have heard Mr. Kanwar and have also examined the averments made in the application.



2. According to the appellants, copy of the order was admittedly received by the appellants on 25.3.2007. Admittedly this appeal was filed on 11.1.2008. It was under objection because certified copy had not been filed. Needful was done on 27.2.2008. Thus for the purposes of limitation, 27th February, 2008 is the date. Reason being that there was no properly constituted appeal presented by the appellants before us.



3. We are alive to the situation that limitation has to be liberally construed in favour of litigant like appellants before us. Reason being that no litigant stands to gain by filing a time barred lis. In fact he runs the risk of getting his case dismissed once it gets time barred. Besides this, Courts are meant to do justice between the parties by setting the controversy at rest between them for all times to come. Approach of the Court has not to be pedantic in the matter of condonation of delay. Reason being that all that a litigant gets in the event of delay being condoned is, that his case will be heard on merits and nothing more. Lastly, when grant of substantial justice is pitted against the plea of limitation, latter would give way to the former. Applying the above broad outlines to the facts as set out in the application for condonation of delay, and also keeping in view the fact that appellants received certified copy of the impugned order on 25.3.2007, how the matter was dealt with thereafter, there is not a single averment of the appellants in the application for condonation of delay. They are not supposed to explain each day’s delay. All that they are required to do is to give a reasonable explanation after 25.3.2007 till the date of filing of the appeal which was defective. They are silent on this vital aspect of the case. Therefore, we are of the view that even while considering the application on the basis of the aforesaid broad principles of law set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 1987 and followed in its subsequent decisions, we find no substance in this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.



4. While dismissing M.A. No.117/2008, we are satisfied that no cause muchless sufficient cause is made out nor any plausible explanation has been put forth by the appellants for condoning the delay. Application stands disposed of.



Appeal No. 42/2008.



Keeping in view of the fact that delay has not been condoned, appeal is ordered to be consigned to records being time barred.



All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.



Learned Counsel for the respondent has undertaken to collect authenticated copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary and office is directed to send an authenticated copy of this order in the like manner to the appellants by post.





Shimla,

March 10, 2009.

( Justice Arun Kumar Goel) (Retd.)

President





( Saroj Sharma )

Member.





( Chander Shekhar Sharma )

Member.