FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH
Misc. Applications Nos. 1943 & 1944 of 2018
In/and
First Appeal No.477 of 2018
Date of Institution: 28.08.2018
Date of Decision : 05.09.2018
Canara Bank, Branch G.T. Road, Batala, through its Authorized Signatory.
Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Sukhdev Singh Bajwa s/o Sh. Manjit Singh Bajwa resident of Gopal Nagar, Smadh Road, Near Nirankari, Batala, District Gurdaspur (Punjab).
Appeal against order dated 25.04.2018 of District Consumer Dispures Redressal Forum Gurdaspur.
And
Application for condonation of delay of 74 days in filing the appeal.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Nitin Grover, Advocate
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
M.A. No. 1943 of 2018 (Delay)
This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant seeking condonation of delay of 74 days in filing the appeal, as the appeal is barred by 74 days' delay. Applicant stated in this application that appellant came to know about the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 passed by District Forum, when it visited the office of District Forum to enquire about the status of the case. On 12.07.2018, the appellant gained the knowledge of this fact that the case has been decided on 25.04.2018 by District Forum. Immediately, on 13.07.2018, the appellant applied for the certified copy of the impugned order, which was received on 19.07.2018, thereafter the appellant sought the legal opinion about the decision of the complaint from the Advocate Sh. Pushkar Nanda, counsel for the appellant before District Forum, who stated that he had no knowledge of the order passed by the District Forum, as he had not received the copy of order under challenge in this case. Thereafter, the order was given to the counsel of appellant and then the instant appeal was filed and due to this reason, the delay of 74 days occurred in filing this appeal, which is neither willful nor intentional and is due to unavoidable circumstances only. The delay of 74 days in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned in this application by the applicant.
2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant/applicant on the point of condonation of delay of 74 days in filing the appeal and have gone through the record of the case. It is specifically mentioned in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the affidavit of Taranjit Singh, Officer/Authorized Signatory that appellant came to know about the order dated 25.04.2018 of District Forum on 12.07.2018 only. The appellant has expressed the lack of knowledge of order passed by District Forum, on the point that the counsel for appellant had not received the order. However, the endorsement on the order given by District Consumer Forum Gurdaspur has belied this version of the appellant. It is specifically recorded in the endorsement that OP now appellant had received the order of District Forum on 17.05.2018 by hand. So the order of District Forum dated 25.04.2018 was delivered to OP now appellant by hand on 17.05.2018. Hence, this contention of appellant that the order of District Forum was not received and it was not in its knowledge prior to 12.07.2018 is proved to be without any substance and force. Even otherwise, there is inordinate delay of 74 days delay in filing the appeal. The matter has 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 has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted for achieving a specific object by the legislatre. The object is the expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes. The very purpose of the 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 of limitation has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act for filing the appeal and the very purpose of this special Act would be defeated by condoning such stale matters. We find no merit in the ground of condonation of delay in this case, as propounded by the appellant. Nobody is supposed to act blindly in any matter. It is their duty to be vigilant. The applicant has not cared to ascertain the status of the case for such a long period and it must suffer the consequences thereof. There is no sufficient ground to condone the unexplained delay of 74 days in filing the appeal, which is inordinate delay in this case, because a legal right has already vested in the respondent of this appeal by efflux of time, which can be taken away only on proof of sufficient circumstances to the contrary.
3. We do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay of 74 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 had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- 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 respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after expiry of period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, subject to stay order, if any.
6. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.
(J.S.Klar)
Presiding Judicial Member
(Kiran Sibal)
September 05, 2018 Member
DB
