Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Presiding Member:
1. Heard Mr. Kamal Kant Varma, Advocate appearing for the appellant on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant in the application/affidavit seeking condonation of delay has taken the ground for not filing the present appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended by an amendment No. 62 of 2002 that as all the legal and business matters of the complainant/appellant were handled by her husband, who is also looking after the business at Dehradun, the appellant was under misapprehension that the complaint has been allowed and respondents are given 60 days time for making payment and only after that period, the appeal could be filed. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the appeal would have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation but the part of delay occurred due to misunderstanding and business matters of appellants husband. On this ground the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal is sought to have been condoned.
2. So far as the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant regarding being ignorant of the fact that the prescribed period for filing the appeal as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] is of 30 days is concerned, it is well-settled law that ignorance of law is no excuse. The appellant at this stage cannot be heard to say that due to her and her husband being busy in looking after the business at Dehradun, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days. The appellant even has not mentioned the date on which she received the certified copy of the impugned order. On perusal of the certified copy of impugned order placed on record, it is apparent that the copy of order was prepared by the District Forum on 4.7.2003 but the date of despatch has not been mentioned on any page of the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the envelope in which the appellant received the copy of the impugned order has been misplaced by the appellant. As a matter of fact, if we take the date of 18.7.2003, mentioned in the application/affidavit seeking condonation of delay, as the date on which the District Forum despatched the copy of the impugned order, the appeal would have been filed upto 22nd of August, 2003 as it took approximately three to four days in reaching the copy of the order by postal service. If we calculate the delay in filing the appeal from 22.8.2003, delay of 37 days has occurred in filing the appeal but the appellant has calculated the delay of 40 days from 18.8.2003 i.e. one month after the date of preparation of the certified copy of the impugned order which in the instant case is 18.7.2003. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the respondent-Deepak Transport Corporation has also filed an appeal arising out the same order, which has been impugned in the present appeal Appeal No. 408 of 2003 and which is listed for 20.10.2003 for hearing. We hold that above ground is also not a sufficient ground for condoing the delay. The inordinate delay in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The grounds urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant being insufficient in the eyes of law have no merit and are rejected.
3. The Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has in the case of Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. O.P. Gauba, III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases 2731 (NS), laid down the law that each days delay is to be satisfactorily explained. It was further held by the Honble National Commission that the delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity.
4. In our considered opinion, the appellant has failed to prove that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days as provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 8, Sub-rule (4), Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. Resultantly, the application seeking condonation of delay lacks merit and is dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed as being barred by limitation.
Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.