Haryana

StateCommission

A/1324/2018

EKTA RANI CHAUHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.CHAHAR

28 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                First Appeal No.1324 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution: 07.12.2018

Date of final hearing: 28.02.2023

                                                       Date of pronouncement: 27.03.2023

Ekta Rani Chauhan D/o Ompal Singh Chauhan, H.No. 109, Sector-22A, Gurgaon Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

Managing Director, Union Bank of India, G 6A Bestech Square Mall, Sushant Lokk 2 Sector-57, Gurgaon.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.K.S. Chahar, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. S.P. Chugh, counsel for respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal No.1323 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 15.01.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.16 of 2017, which was allowed.

2.      There is a delay of 287 days in filing the present appeal. Theappellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of  287 days wherein,  it is alleged that appellant being an illiterate and rustic villager was not well versed with the process of law and did not take the certified copy of the impugned order dated 15.01.2018 and thus appellant came to know about the judgment dated 15.01.2018 only in the month of November, 2018 when the appellant contacted the District Commission regarding the order otherwise appellant had been under an impression that the suit of the plaintiff has been passed in his favour. Thus, delay of 287 days in filing of the present appeal be condoned.

3.      Reply to the application for condonation of delay was filed by the counsel for the respondent.  It was alleged that in the Union Home loan application dated 06.09.2010 appellant had disclosed her educational qualification as Ph.D and also herself being employed, but, appellant has miserably failed to submit any documentary proof in respect of alleged illiteracy and residing in a remote village. Appellant will have to explain the reason for each and every days delay between the last day prescribed for filing the appeal and the day on which the appeal was filed. There was no justification in waiting for 287 days in filing the present appeal.

4.      Arguments Heard. File perused.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal was not intentional.    Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that appellant being an illiterate and rustic villager and was not well versed with the process of law and did not take the certified copy of the impugned order dated 15.01.2018 rather appellant came to know about the judgment dated 15.01.2018 only in the month of November, 2018 when the appellant contacted the District Commission regarding the order.  Thus there was no delay in filing the present appeal and the same if any may be condoned. 

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by learned District Commission Gurgaon was well reasoned order and has been passed appreciating the facts of the case. Further argued that appellant has not explained sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Appellant vide Union Home loan application dated 06.09.2010 approached the bank in which she had disclosed her educational qualification as Ph.D and had also disclosed herself beingemployed which shows that she was not illiterate and rustic villager. There was no justification in waiting for 287 days in filing the present appeal.

7.      This argument of appellant is not considered because in the application for condonation of delay the appellant contended that she is illiterate and rustic villager but in the home loan application she has mentioned her qualification as Ph.D. All the details were deliberately concealed by the appellants before this Commission. There was no justification in waiting for 287 days in filing the present appeal.  A period of 30 days as per the old Act has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

8.      The inordinate delay of 287 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Chief Post Master General &Ors Versus Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. 2021 (3) SCC 563 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court:-

“12. It is not in dispute that the person (s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this court.  They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings.  In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.  Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions.  The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

13.    In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities and unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process.  The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.  Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments.  The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.  Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.  Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

14. In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c ).  The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

      In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  RewaCoalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

         

9.      Taking into consideration the pleas raised by appellant in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone delay of 287 days in filing of the appeal.

10.    Perusal of the file shows that the appellant has filed this appeal before this Commission on 07.12.2018, whereasin the certified copy of the order passed by District Commission attached with the appeal date of preparation of copy is depicted as 18.01.2018 and date of issue/dispatch of copy is mentioned as 24.01.2018. The appellant has received the certified copy of the order on 24.01.2018. Thusthe complainant has deliberately concealed the material facts before this Commission. The appellant has miserably failed to give any convincing and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.

11.    It is admitted that complainant-appellantobtained home loan from respondent for an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- repayable along with floatinginterest of 8.75% per annum by way of180 equated monthly installments of Rs.15,991/- each. It is also not disputed that in the foreclosure letter dated 14.06.2016 (Ex.C-2) the rate of interest charges has been mentioned as 9.65%. Learned District Commission has rightly directed respondent to charge the sanctioned rate of interest in terms of the agreement and to refund the excess amount. Thus, learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 15.01.2018 and thus no ground for enhancement of compensation made out. The appeal being devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

12.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

13.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.      File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 27^thMarch, 2023

 

 

 

                        (Suresh ChanderKaushik)                       (S. P. Sood)                                                  Member                                                            Judicial Member                

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)