Punjab

StateCommission

A/448/2018

One assist consumer solution pvt. ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnail Singh and another - Opp.Party(s)

S.R. Bansal

18 Oct 2018

ORDER

FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37 A, CHANDIGARH

 

Misc. Applications No. 1820 & 1821 of 2018

In/and

First Appeal No.448 of 2018

                                                           

   Date of Institution: 09.08.2018

Date of Decision  : 18.10.2018

One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 707-709, Acme Plaza, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai.     

Appellant/Opposite party No.1

                                      Versus

1. Karnail Singh, S/o Sh. Harbans Lal, R/o Mohalla Aranhali, Rahon, Distt. Shaheed Bhagat Nagar Punjab – 144514.

Respondent No.1/complainant

2. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, 5^th Floor, Sterling Cinema Buildingh, Murzban Road, Azad Maidan, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

….. Respondent No.2/Opposite party No.2

Appeal against order dated 19.03.2018 of District Consumer Dispures Redressal Forum Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

•  

 

Application for condonation of delay of 106 days in filing the appeal.

Quorum:-

           Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

Present:-

          For the appellant/OP No.1         :        Sh. S.R. Bansal, Advocate

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

 

J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL  MEMBER :-

M.A. No. 1820 of 2018 (Delay)

 

          This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant seeking condonation of delay of 106 days in filing the appeal, as the appeal is barred by time of 106 days delay.  The applicant has stated in this application that on 24.03.2018, appellant company received the certified copy of the impugned order from the District Forum.  Appellant was not in the knowledge of proceedings before District Forum and no notice was received by appellant in this case.  After obtaining, the certified copy of order dated 24.03.2018, the appellant sought legal opinion from legal department of appellant company and then file was moved from one desk to another for approvals to file the appeal. Due to above said reasons, the delay of 106  days occurred in filing the appeal, which is not willful and is due to unavoidable circumstances. The delay of 106 days has been sought to be condoned in this application by the applicant.

2.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant on the point of condonation of delay of 106 days in filing the appeal at admission stage of the appeal and also examined the record of the case.  First and foremost submission of counsel for appellant/OP No.1 is that it had not received any notice in the case before District Forum of proceedings pending thereat.  Whereas, it is clearly mentioned in the order of District Forum dated 10.10.2017 that notice was sent to appellant/OP No.1 on 01.09.2017 and the same was not received back and hence, District Forum OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte by the District Forum.  It is strictly according to law.  Whereas, second submission of counsel for appellant/OP No.1 is that delay is only procedural in nature of moving file from one office to another in seeking permission to file the appeal.  National Commission has examined this controversy in National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Akhtar Bano reported in IV (2013) CPJ 617 (NC), wherein it has been held that merely mentioning that file moved from one office to another office cannot constitute a sufficient ground to condone the delay.  The matter has also been settled by Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in Consumer Protection Reporter in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein it was held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted for achieving a specific object. The object is the expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes under the Act.  The very purpose of the special Act will be defeated, in case, Court was to entertain highly belated petitions against the order of the Consumer Fora.  Stale matters cannot be allowed to be agitated again and again.  Law of limitation operates somewhat rigorously.  We find that a specified period for filing the appeal has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act being, a Special Act and the very purpose of this Special Act would be defeated by condoning such inordinate and unexplained delay in such stale matters.  The sufficiency of the ground to condone the delay is not made out in this case by the appellant/applicant. 

3.                In view of the matter as held by Apex Court and National Commission in above authorities, there is no sufficient ground to condone the above referred inordinate delay, because a legal right has already vested in other side by efflux of time in this case.  It can be taken away only on proof of sufficient ground to the effect that the delay in the circumstances was beyond the control of the concerned party.  Consequently, we do not find any sufficient ground in the application for condonation of inordinare delay of 106  days, as put in by the appellant, and the same is hereby dismissed. 

Main Appeal

4.                Since, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, hence the appeal is barred by time and is ordered to be dismissed in limine.

5.                Appellant/OP No.1had deposited the amount of Rs.1,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, subject to stay order, if any.  Remaining amount, if any, due shall be paid to complainant by OP accordingly. 

6.       Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules. 

                                                                                     (J.S.Klar)

                                                                     Presiding Judicial Member

                                                                           

October 18, 2018                                                             

DB