Punjab

StateCommission

A/418/2017

M/s Satpal Seeds Corp. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jasbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

C.L.Sharma

08 Jun 2017

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

 

Misc. Application No. 1190 of 2017

In/and

                                                               First Appeal No. 418 of 2017

 

        Date of institution  :  06.06.2017  

Date of decision     :  08.06.2017    

 

M/s Satpaul Seeds Corporation, Railway Road, Garhsanker District Hoshiarpur through its Proprietor Sh. Trimbak Kumar s/o Sh. Satpal.

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1. Sh. Jasbir Singh s/o Sh. Mohinder Singh r/o Village  Samundra Tehsil Garshanker Distt. Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

Complainant/respondent

2. Wipro Highbred Seeds, 131, Indra Market Purani Sabji Mandi, New Delhi through its Proprietor.
3. Uttar Pradesh State Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha (An undertaking of Govt of UP) Rajkiya Udyan Parisa Alambagh, Lucknow (UP) through its Director.

                                                              ….OPs No.2&3/respondents.

 

First Appeal against the order dated 07.12.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

                        Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.

 

Present:-

 

          For the applicant/appellant: Sh.C.L. Sharma, Advocate

 

GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

ORDER

 

The appellant/opposite party No.1 has filed the present appeal against the order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 145 dated 08.07.2014 vide which the complaint filed by complainant was partly allowed and OPs were jointly and severally liable to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the original complaint and also pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

 

Misc. Application No. 1190 of 2017 (delay)

 

2.                Appellant/applicant has filed an application to condone the delay of 516 days in filing the appeal. It has been stated in the application that OP No.3 filed the appeal which was accepted by this Commission vide order dated 03.02.2017. However, the appellant being a poor shopkeeper could not file the appeal within limitation. Further, he could not find the certified copy of the order received from the District Forum. After perusing the record, it was found that the case file was sent to the Hon’ble Commission and after lot of struggle when the record of the District Forum was traced on 02.06.2017, the appellant applied for certified copy and got the same from the Hon’ble Commission and then he filed this appeal. In this process, there is a delay of 516 days occurred in filing the appeal which is not intentional.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. The first point raised by the counsel for the appellant is that he is a poor shopkeeper, therefore, he could not file the appeal in time. However, paucity of fund is not a ground to condone the delay. There is a latest judgment of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla I(2015) CPJ 12C (CN) (HP) “Saloh Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd. & Anr. Versus Dhanvir” wherein the ground that the appellant did not have the requisite amount was not considered to be a ground to condone the delay.

4.                The next point raised by the counsel for the applicant is that when he came to know that the appeal filed by other OPs was allowed by this Commission then he applied for the certified copy of the impugned order but he could not get the same as the record was summoned by the Hon’ble State Commission. As and when the record was received in the District Forum, he got the copy of the same. However, he has not stated what efforts he had made from December 2015 to April 2017 to file the appeal. It has also not been stated what has happened to  the copy received from District Forum free of cost.

 5.               In case, no sufficient ground is made out then a long delay cannot be condoned. A reference can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Himachal Pradesh housing and Urban Development Authority Vs Tara Wati & Ords”, reported in I(2017) CPJ 65 (NC)  that there was a delay of 62 days in filing  the appeal and the application was filed in most routine and casual manner, putting the entire blame on the counsel. They did not explain why they are not vigilant. Sufficient cause was not shown and application was dismissed. There is another judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Bhagirati Godawari Aqua Pure Pvt. Ltd. versus United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in I(2017) CPJ 187 (NC), there was delay of 559 days, sufficient cause was not shown delay not condoned. Similarly, in the present case no such sufficient cause is made out on the basis of averments in the application. Therefore, we do not see any merit in  that application to condone a long delay of 516 days in filing the appeal. The miscellaneous application is hereby dismissed.

 

MAIN APPEAL

 

6.                Since the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, appeal filed by the appellant/OP No.1 is hereby dismissed in limine being barred by limitation.

7.                The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the of the appeal. This amount along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the District Forum, after expiry of 90 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass an appropriate order in this regard. 

8.                Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

 

 

                             (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL)

                                                           PRESIDENT     

                                                         

 

 

                                           (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN)

                                                    JUDICIAL MEMBER

June 08, 2017.