Haryana

StateCommission

A/420/2019

M/S GAGANDEEP TRACTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALWANT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SAURABH GARG

16 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.420 of 2019

Date of Institution: 29.04.2019

Date of Decision: 16.01.2020

 

M/s Gagandeep Tractor, Pehowa Road, Cheeka, District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor Jagjit Singh S/o Balwant Singh, R/o Badhsuyi Dera, Kaalgarh, Tehsil Cheeka, District Kurukshetra.

 

…..Appellant.

Versus

 

Balwant Singh (Since deceased through his LR’s) and Major Singh son of Balwant Singh (since deceased through his LR’s)

1.      Gurcharan Singh S/o Balwant Singh, R/o Isharheri, District Kurukshetra.

2.      Gurdeep Singh son of Balwant Singh, R/o Pandav Nagar-253-C, New Delhi.

3.      Sukhvinder Kaur W/o Sukhdev Singh, D/o Balwant Singh, R/o Maddipur.

4.      Daljit Singh son of Balwant Singh, R/o Isharheri, District Kurukshetra.

(Respondents No.1 to 3 through their Special Power of Attorney Daljit Singh S/o Balwant Sigh, R/o Isharheri, District Kurukshetra).

 

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Smt. Manjula, Member.                                              

Present:               Shri Saurabh Garg, counsel for the appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

SMT. MANJULA, MEMBER:-

                    As per order dated 15.01.2020 contained in letter No.118, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.                Alongwith the appeal, appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 772 days wherein,  it is alleged that the appeal could not be filed in time because during the pendency of execution proceedings before learned District Forum, Kurukshetra, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute after entering into a written compromise and respondents have received an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from the appellant and further aggravate not to carry out any further proceedings in the matter. It is further alleged that the appellant had never willfully disobey or disregard the order passed by the Forum, but due to circumstances beyond his control, the appellant was unable to comply with the order passed by learned District Forum, which resulted the passing of impugned orders. So, there was no negligence on the part of appellant.  Delay in filing appeal was not intentional and willful but due to above mentioned facts and circumstances.

3.               Arguments heard.  File perused.

4.                Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned in the application, it is clear that parties have amicably settled the dispute and in full and final satisfaction of their claim. In this way delay was not intentional and same may be condoned.

5.               This argument is devoid of any force.  The explanation given by the appellants is not proper. Explanation for delay seems to be vague and concocted. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221  as under:-

“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 (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”.

                    Taking into consideration, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in the application for condonation of delay and the settled principle of law, we do not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 772 days in filing the appeal when no ‘Sufficient Cause’ is established. Hence, application filed for condonation of delay is dismissed.

7.               Even if the case is taken on merits then also we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra as there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant. Thus, no interference is warranted for. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being time barred and bad on merits.

 

January 16th, 2020                                                                            Manjula                                                                                                                                  Member                                                                                                                                  Addl. Bench                          

R.K.