Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/1108

SHARDA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Feb 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date: 18.02.2019

First Appeal No.1108/2012

In the matter of:

Ms. Sharda Gupta 14/9, Shakti Nagar Delhi-110007

:

Counsel for the Appellant Sh. R. K. Pathak, Advocate

                       

Versus

 

	Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. Milap Building 4th Floor, Express Area ITO, B.  S. Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002	:	Counsel for the respondent Sh. Saneep Sirivastava, Advocate alognwith Sh. Ayush Gupta, AR (Manager Legal) of the Respondent Kotak Mahindra Primus
	MMGF Hundai, MGF Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. 85A Rishyamook Building, Panchkulan Road, New Delhi-110001

                                   

CORAM         :           HON’BLE SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

 

ANIL SRIVASTAVA– MEMBER

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1.                   Aggrieved by the orders dated 05.09.2012 passed by the District Forum (Central) in CC No. 643/2004 in the matter of Ms. Sharda Gupta vs. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. and Others dismissing the complainant finding no deficiency of service, Ms. Sharda Gupta resident of Delhi has preferred this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  (the Act), for short Appellant, against M/s. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. & MFG Hundai, hereinafter referred to as the Respondents, alleging that the order passed suffered from infirmity and therefore, has prayed for allowed the complaint.  Arguments on merit as also on technical objections have been heard.  The technical objection in the given case is that the appeal has been filed after completion of stipulated time as indicated under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is as under:

 

“15. Appeal.—Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

 

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

 

1[Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less.]”

 

2.                   This  appeal has come before this Commission for final hearing on 18.02.2019 when counsel for both the sides appeared and advanced their arguments.  I have read and re-read the averments made in the appeal as also the orders passed.  

 

3.                   The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent at the very outset argued on the question of limitation. The order was passed by the District Forum on 05.09.2012 but the appeal has been preferred in this Commission on 07.12.2012.  Admittedly there is a delay the appeal having been filed after the stipulated period.  Respondent has drawn my attention on the application of the Appellant praying for condonation of delay.  The reason advanced by the Appellant for the purpose is that in the month of October the Courts were closed.  This does not satisfy me in any way.  Whenever there is observation of vacation, either in June or in December, the Registry of the Commission is open to receive the documents and to accept the papers.  Hence this reason alone is not sufficient to condone the delay.  No other reason for the condonation of delay has been advanced.

 

4.                   The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Prem Prakash Goel vs. Green Carriers and Contractors (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. as reported in II (2014) CPJ 22 (NC) is pleased to hold that the fragile explanation for the condonation of delay does not ring the bell.  Person who had searched and found out the file does not disclose the date when that file was searched. Day to day explanation not having been furnished the delay cannot be condoned.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in yet another matter, in the matter of Central Bank of India vs.  Ayodha Prasad Awasthi as reported in I (2015) CPJ 712 (NC) is pleased to observe that specific periods have been prescribed for filing of appeal and revision petitions under the law to ensure that fruits of awards or decree are not unduly delayed to successful litigation.  Cogent explanation is to be given in support of each request for condonation of delay.  Petitioner failed to explain the delay satisfactorily so as to constitute sufficient cause.  Delay was not condoned. 

 

5.                   In this view of the matter and having not been satisfied with the reason furnished praying for the condonation of the delay, the said delay is not condoned and once the delay is not condoned the appeal by implication stands dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

 

6.                   Ordered accordingly.

 

7.                   A copy of the order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.  A copy send to District Forum for information.

 

8.                   File be consigned to record.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

Member

​