Delhi

StateCommission

FA/361/2014

SANJAY NAYYAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE STATE MINISTRY OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision: 20.08.2015

Appeal No. 361/14

 

Sh. Sanjay Nayyar,

S/o Sh. Satish Nayyar,

R/o F-26, Green Park Main,

New Delhi-110016.                                                                         …..........Appellant

 

Versus

1. The STATE,

Through Secretary,

Ministry of Food & Civil Supplies &

Consumer Affairs,

K-Block Vikas Bhawan,

I.P. Estate,

New Delhi-110002.

 

2. The Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum No.II,

Through its President

22-23, Udyog Sadan,

Qutab Institutional Area, 3^rd Floor,

Behind Qutab Hotel,

New Delhi-110016.

 

3. The Taj Palace Hotel,

Through its General Manager,

Sardar Patel Marg,

Diplomatic Enclave,

New Delhi.                                                        ….....Respondents

                                                                            

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta Member (Judicial)

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

  OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The present appeal assails order dated 28.03.2013 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, Delhi vide which the District Forum returned the complaint of appellant for presentation in Goa.

 

2. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that appellant has joined STATE through Secretary, Ministry of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs as respondent-1 and Consumer Redressal Forum-II as respondent-2 though they are not parties before the District Forum. Moreover, quasi judicial authority cannot be joined as a respondent. The relief of the appellant is against the respondent-3 alone who was OP in the District Forum. Thus, appeal is bad for mis-joinder of the parties.

 

3. The next hurdle in the case is that appeal is barred by limitation as the same was filed on 15.04.2014. The appellant has filed application for condonation of delay which mentions that delay, if any, caused in filing present appeal may be condoned in the greater interest of justice. Application is quite vague. Appellant himself is not clear whether there is any delay in filing appeal and if so, how much is the delay.

 

4. Anyhow, the only fact mentioned in the application for condonation of delay is that impugned order dated 28.03.2013 was passed by the District Forum after notice of Writ Petition (No.4511/2012) issued by the Hon’ble High Court to President of District Forum. The said Write Petition was disposed of by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 24.02.2014.

 

5. The application has been opposed by respondent-3 by filing reply dated 16.06.2015.  It has raised preliminary objections that there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay of 600 days in filing appeal. The appellant without waiting for outcome of complaint, preferred Writ Petition (No.4511/2012 Supra) seeking directions to respondent-1 and respondent-2 in the said Writ Petition to forthwith constitute District Consumer Protection Council as provided u/s 8A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the said Writ Petition on 30.07.2012 Hon’ble High Court issued notice and categorically observed that issuance of notice was not to stop Ld. District Forum from disposing of the matter on merits. On 24.02.2014 Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with observations that when remedy of appeal is available Writ Petition should not be entertained.

 

6. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority –IV (2011) CPJ 63 Hon’ble High Court held that while deciding application for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act and the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if the court was to entertain highly belated petitions against the orders of Consumer Foras. The same was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory (2012) 8 SCC 524.

 

7. In Writ Petition No.1848 of 2012 titled as Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal & Anr. decided on 21.05.2012, the bench of National Commission headed by Hon’ble President rejected the explanation that file was moving from table to table to get permission to file appeal.

 

8. We have gone through the material on record and heard arguments on the application for condontion of delay.  The appellant did not withdraw the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court with liberty to file appeal in State Commission.  The Hon’ble High Court while disposing of the Writ did not grant liberty to the appellant to prefer appeal before this Commission. So strictly speaking the appellant is not entitled to benefit of section 14 of Limitation Act and exclude period spent by appellant in pursing the Writ Petition.

 

9. Even if the said period is excluded for the sake of argument, the Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 24.02.2014.  The appeal has been filed on 15.04.2014.  There is a gap of 50 days between the disposal of the Writ Petition by the Hon’ble High Court and filing of the present appeal.  There is no explanation at all for the said gap.

 

10. We do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay.  The application is dismissed.  With this, appeal must automatically stand dismissed as being barred by limitation.

 

11. Still we have tried to go through the appeal on merits.  The grievance of the appellant is that Ld. President of District Forum mis-used his powers with intent to settle personal score with the appellant by punishing him for approaching the Hon’ble High Court.  This is the ridiculous.  The judicial authority never feels annoyed by filing of appeal or writ. That is right of litigant. The apprehension of appellant is unfounded.

 

12. Other plea of the appellant is that the District Forum directed the appellant to maintain the official file of the Forum.  On failure to comply with the same, the Consumer Forum gave adjournment for more than four months or the file was partly destroyed. The same has been denied by respondent-2 in his reply filed in the Hon’ble High Court. That finishes the matter.

 

13. The third plea of the appellant is that initially he filed complaint in this Commission which was returned for presentation to District Forum vide order dated 28.02.2007 passed by this Commission in complaint No.7/13.  Copy of the said order reveals that it was returned only on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.  There is no reference regarding territorial jurisdiction.  That how is the District Forum has dealt with this plea in the impugned order.  There is no fault with the reasoning of the District Forum.

 

14. It appears that appellant lost track of his case while making complaint against the District Forum and while seeking establishment of Consumer Protection Council by filing a Writ. Setting up of Consumer Protection Council has nothing to do with the decision of complaint before consumer court.

 

15. The complained has not explained as to how District Forum in Delhi has jurisdiction.  He stayed in hotel of respondent-3 in Goa, theft took place in Goa.  Thus, cause of action arose in Goa and District For a, Goa alone has jurisdiction.

 

16. Moreover, the impugned order does not cause any loss to appellant. His complaint has not been dismissed. It has only been returned for presentation to Goa, District Forum. The appellant may file complaint in Goa.

 

17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and also to the District Forum.

                                                       

 

                                                                                                  (Salma Noor) Member

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)