Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/405/2023

RAMESH CHANDER GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF BARODA - Opp.Party(s)

SHRUTI SHARMA

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	405 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	09.08.2023
Mis. Application No.	:	71 of 2023
Date of filing MA	:	17.08.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	10.11.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Ramesh Chander Gupta, aged about 79 years, R/o H.No.2059, Ground Floor, Sector 21-c, Chandigarh 160021

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Bank of Baroda, Chandigarh Main Office through its authorized representative Mr.Naresh Kumar, Chief Manager, 62-63, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh 160017

2]  Bank of Baroda, through its authroised representative Puran Purohit, Branch Manager, SCO 1120-21, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh 160022.

3]  Bank of Baroda, through its authorized representative S.P.S. Tomar, Regional Manger, Batta Kufar Sanket Heights, Dogra Commercial Complex, Near Apple Market, Shimla 171006

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDENT

         MR.S.K.SARDANA,          MEMBER

   

Present:-  Sh.Jastaran Chhatwal, Counsel for the complainant along with complainant.

 

Sh.Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.),LLM, PRESIDENT

 

         The Ld. Counsel for the complainant filed Misc. Application No. 71 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 438 days in filing the present complaint under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused entire documents on record.

3]       Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 is reproduced as under:-

5.       Extension of prescribed period in certain cases:-

Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient case for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

 

Explanation:-The fact that the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.

 

4]       It is observed that Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, applies to 'Appeals' and it does not apply to ‘complaints’.  Moreover it is not a technical defect but a legal defect which could be ignored.

        

5]       The burden of proof is upon the applicant/complainant to show that there was sufficient cause for the delay.     

 

6]       Applicant/Complainant has not been able to give adequate and sufficient reason for the delay of 438 days in filing the present complaint.    In the application, the applicant himself mentioned that he visited at the place of OP many times but in vain.  If applicant is visiting at the place of the OP many times, then he could have visited his counsel and file the present complaint in time.    Therefore, the application for condonation of delay of 438 days is dismissed.  The complaint is disposed off accordingly.  The Office is directed to return the original documents, if any, to the complainant after retaining its copies on file.   

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10.11.2023                                                                   

Sd/-

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER