SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1148846 |
Court | Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun |
Decided On | Jan-15-2014 |
Case Number | First Appeal No. 277 of 2010 |
Judge | B.C. KANDPAL, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. C.C. PANT, MEMBER |
Appellant | Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Haridwar and Another |
Respondent | Jitendra Batra |
B.C. Kandpal, President:
1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred with a delay of 200 days, against the order dated 29.01.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 05 of 2009.
2. For condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appellants have moved a delay condonation application supported with the affidavit of Sh. Pradeep Tripathi, Managar, Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Branch Office, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun (Paper Nos. 13 to 15). In the affidavit, it has been averred that the notice of the consumer complaint was received by Sh. Manish Chandra Gupta, Manager of the appellant No. 1 and he kept the said notice in his personal file and that there were some charges against the said official regarding irregularities and carelessness in his duties. The appellant No. 1 was not satisfied with his work and he was forced to resign. The said official resigned from his duties, but did not deliver the papers of the company kept by him in his personal file including the notice of the consumer complaint. The appellants got the information of the proceedings of the consumer complaint and the judgment passed in the consumer complaint on receipt of notice of execution proceedings by the appellant No. 2. After receipt of the notice of execution proceedings, the same was sent to the appellant No. 1, who sent the same to their counsel at Haridwar. The counsel told that the consumer complaint was filed against the appellants and the same has been decided ex-parte against them. On inspection of the file, the counsel applied for certified copies of certain documents. On receipt of the copies, the appellant No. 1 informed the appellant No. 2 and sought instructions for setting aside the ex-parte order. Thereafter it was decided that an appeal be filed against the order of the District Forum and then the counsel was engaged and the appeal was prepared and filed before this Commission. On the basis of the above averments, the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned.
3. The respondent filed objections against the delay condonation application / affidavit (Paper Nos. 32 to 34) and stated that the appellants have not shown any sufficient cause or reason for delay of 200 days in filing the appeal and that the appellants have not explained the day-to-day delay in filing the appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the appellants in support of the delay condonation application, it is evident that no date prior to 28.07.2010, when the counsel for the appellants applied before the District Forum for certified copy of certain documents, has been given and thereafter also, no date has been mentioned as to when the matter was sent to the Head Office, when the Head Office gave sanction for filing the appeal and when the counsel was engaged for filing the appeal. It is true that the impugned order passed by the District Forum against the appellants is an ex-parte order, but a perusal of the same shows that the notice of the consumer complaint was duly served upon the appellants, but they did not turn up to contest the proceedings. In the affidavit filed by the appellants in support of the delay condonation application, this fact has also been admitted that the notice of the consumer complaint was received by one of their employee. The impugned order was passed on 29.01.2010 and according to the appellants, the certified copies of certain documents was applied by their counsel on 28.07.2010, but the present appeal has been filed on 16.09.2010 and no explanation or reason has been given for the delay between the period from 28.07.2010 to 16.09.2010. This apart, the certified copy of the impugned order placed on record shows that the same was delivered to the counsel for the appellants on 28.07.2010 itself. Thus, we are of the definite opinion that the appellants have not been able to show any sufficient cause or reason for condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the appeal and, as such, the delay condonation application is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by time.
6. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Agarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority; IV (2011) CPJ 653 (SC), has held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, it needs to be kept in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters. The object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Fora are entertained.
7. The Honble National Commission in its decision rendered in the case of Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Sheo Prakash Gupta and another; III (2012) CPJ 227 (NC), has declined to condone the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal and it was held that sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period has not been shown. The Honble National Commission in the case of Ketan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Dattaraya Namjoshi; III (2012) CPJ 60 (NC), has held that a person who seeks exercise of judicial discretion of Court or Tribunal in his favour in the matter of condonation of delay, must explain to the satisfaction of Court / Tribunal / Forum that he had œsufficient cause? which prevented him from filing the proceedings within prescribed period of limitation. He must explain each days delay and show that delay was not intentional or willful which will entitle him to seek judicial discretion in his favour. The Honble National Commission in the case of HUDA Vs. Supreme System; II (2011) CPJ 70 (NC), has held that the delay of each day has to be explained. In the case of VRL Logistic Ltd. and another Vs. M.M. Gears Pvt. Ltd. and another; III (2012) CPJ 293 (NC), there was delay of 351 days in filing the revision petition. It was alleged that the delay was caused due to default of counsel for the petitioner. The said contention was not accepted by the Honble National Commission and it was held that there was persistent attitude of neglect from the side of the petitioner to prosecute the matter. It was further held that the petitioner being a limited company, has several staff to watch and pursue the matter. The same principle also applies to the appellants.
8. Recently, the Honble Apex Court in the case of Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another; (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563, has held that 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. It is also a settled law that Law does not make special provision for State or Government.
9. In the case of R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari; 2009 (2) Scale 108, the Honble Apex Court has observed:
œWe 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.?
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by time. No order as to costs.