Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition of the Appellants.

It appears, there is a delay of 514 days in filing this Appeal (excluding the statutory period of limitation). 

The Appellants have attributed the delay firstly to the resignation of Law Officer, who is stated to have left the service of the Company on 31-10-2016.  Secondly, non-availability of another Ld. Advocate on account of his family exigency and appointment of another Advocate in his place is stated to have caused delay in filing this Appeal. 

Whatever be the case, there can be no differing view as to the fact that 514 days delay is indeed a huge delay.  While the driving force behind enactment of this beneficial legislation is to expedite disposal of cases, such inordinate delay is not ordinarily tolerable and can hardly be condoned in the name of natural justice. 

It transpires that, on notice, the Appellants appeared before the Ld. District Forum and filed WV.  Thus, it remains unclear, why the case was decided ex parte.  It is crystal clear, therefore, that there was gross laches on the part of the concerned officials of the Appellants. It appears that Mahendra Nath Mallik, Ld. Advocate of the Appellants passed away on 14-07-2016; whereas, the complaint case was decided on 16-09-2019.  Since it was the responsibility of the concerned Law Department of the Appellants to maintain proper liaison with their panel Advocate, the death of aforesaid Ld. Advocate cannot be a valid ground to remain unrepresented before the Ld. District Forum. In any case, since the WV was filed, it is naive to believe that, while deciding the fate of the case, the Ld. District Forum did take into consideration the contention of the Appellants.

Further, admittedly the present Law Officer of the Appellants received copy of the Execution Case on 04-02-2017 and after receiving certified copy of the impugned order on 16-02-2017, immediately handed over the brief to an Advocate, namely, Sri Trilokchand Gupta.  Against such backdrop, it is not clear, why they kept quiet till 19-02-2018 and swung into action only after the Police Authority knocked their door to execute the WA being issued by the Ld. District Forum. Although by filing a letter purportedly written by the concerned Advocate dated 21-03-2018, the Appellants tried to pass the entire buck upon the said Advocate, we feel that, in their own interest, though ought to remain proactive in their approach.  It is strange that for long one year, no attempt was made from their side to contact the concerned Advocate or make alternative arrangement to file the Appeal.  It is a clear pointer of the lackadaisical attitude of the Appellants.

We afraid, we are not at all satisfied with the explanation being given by the Appellants.

Besides, we have also considered the merit of this Appeal, but found no substance in it.  The complaint case was filed alleging illegal repossession of the hypothecated vehicle by the Appellants.  Although the Appellants disputed the impugned order from different angles, they have not filed a solitary piece of document to show that before repossessing the subject vehicle, they ensured due compliance of the guideline being formulated by the RBI in such matter.  There can be no manner of doubt, therefore, that such repossession of the vehicle was bad in law.  For this reason, by directing the Appellants to return the truck to the Respondent, it seems, the Ld. District Forum committed no infirmity.

We, thus,  find no reason at all to allow the delay condonation petition of the Appellants.  The same is rejected as such.  Consequent thereof, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.