Punjab

StateCommission

A/903/2016

GMADA - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gagan Kakkar - Opp.Party(s)

Yoginder Nagpal

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,    PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                   Misc.Appl.No.2229 of 2016

                             In/and

                   First Appeal No.903 of 2016

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 02.12.2016

                                                          Date of Decision: 21.12.2016

 

Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

 

                                                                   …..Appellant/Opposite party

           

                                      Versus

 

Gagan Kakar son of Sh. Ashok Kumar, r/o H.No.241, Sector 21/A, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                 …Respondent/Complainant

         

First Appeal against order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali)

 

Application for condonation of delay of 124 days

 

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

                    Shri. H.S. Guram, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant                            :  Sh.Yoginder Nagpal, Advocate.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

          J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

 

          This order shall dispose of this application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 124 days in filing the appeal. The ground propounded by the appellant in seeking condonation of delay is that the order under appeal from District Forum SAS Nagar was received on 01.07.2016 in the office of the appellant. It was looked into and marked to legal cell on 29.09.2016 for filing appeal. The file was put up by official of legal branch to higher authorities of GMADA for seeking approval to file the appeal against the same. The Chief Administrator GMADA gave approval on 20.10.2016 for filing the appeal against the order seeking to challenge in the appeal and engaged Sh. Yoginder Nagpal Advocate in this regard. The appeal was drafted and sent to legal cell on 31.10.2016 and after vetting the draft of appeal, the legal cell sent the draft of appeal to appellant on 04.11.2016 for verification of facts and signature. On 25.11.2016, the file was marked to legal branch for necessary amendments in the draft, which was finally signed on 29.11.2016. The delay of 124 ensued in filing the appeal on the above-referred grounds. The appellant has, thus, sought the condonation of delay on the above-referred grounds of appeal. Affidavit of Mahesh Bansal Estate Officer PUDA Bhawan Sector 62 SAS Nagar (Mohali) has been attached.

2.      On hearing respective submissions of counsel for the appellant and examining the record of the case, we find that the order was pronounced by District Forum SAS Nagar Mohali on 21.04.2016. The order was dispatched on 29.06.2016, as evident from the endorsement of the office. But it was contended in this case that it was received on 01.07.2016 in the office of appellant. The instant appeal was preferred on 05.12.2016 before this Commission. The delay of 124 days ensued on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal. We are of this view that the law of limitation operates rigorously. It makes no distinction in its strict applicability between individual and government/ State. It applies with equal rigor to both of them.  Consumer Protection Act is a special Act designed to provide speedy relief to the aggrieved persons. Special period of limitation has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to file the appeal. The procedure detailed in it is summary in nature for providing speedy relief to the aggrieved persons. The purpose of Act is not designed to condone such a long and inordinate delay, for which there is no sufficient ground established on the file by the appellant to excuse it under the provisions of the Act. The law of limitation has to be interpreted keeping in view the letter and spirit, for which it was enacted by the legislature. Stale matters without any valid reason cannot be condoned. Undoubtedly, Forum is empowered to condone the delay under the Act only on sufficient grounds and not otherwise. We find that delay of 124 days took place on the part of the appellant is unexplained. It is not supposed to sleep over the matter. It is supposed to act promptly so as to set an explicit example of deliverance of good administration in the country. We find that there is no plausible ground put forth in this case for condonation of delay. A vague and trite ground has been projected before us for condoning 124 days delay, without any substance on the record by the appellant. There are no affidavits of the concerned officials, who examined the file and were responsible in causing the delay. Consequently, in view of the purport, for which this Consumer Protection Act was enacted, we are not convinced with the sufficiency of ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 124 days in this case. Consequently, we find no merit in the application for condonation of delay and same is hereby dismissed.

Main Case :-

3.      Since the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed and the delay has not been condoned of alleged 124 days, hence the appeal is barred by time and same is hereby dismissed in limine.

4.      The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the respondent of this appeal being complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount, if any, due shall also be paid to complainant by the appellant within 45 days from receipt of the copy of this order, subject to compliance of stay order, if any received.

5.      Since the order was reserved on 20.12.2016, hence it be communicated to the parties under rules.

6.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                         (J. S. KLAR)

                                                       PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

         

                                                                   

                                                                       (H.S. GURAM)

                                                                           MEMBER

December 21, 2016.                                                           

(ravi)