w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Gurpreet Singh v/s Harman Milkfoods Limited & Others

    Appeal Case No. 345 of 2003
    Decided On, 10 July 2003
    At, Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SRIVASTAVA
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. DEVINDERJIT DHATT
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. MAJ. GEN. S.P. KAPOOR
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellant: Sukhjjit Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: None.


Judgment Text
K.K. Srivastava, President:

1. The appellant seeks condonation of delay of 85 days in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The order dated 4.2.2003 was received by the appellant on 24.2.2003. The appeal was received in the office of this State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh on 30.6.2003. The grounds on which the appellant relies to satisfy the State Commission about the sufficiency thereof are two-fold.

2. In the first place, the mother of the appellant suffered fracture in the month of March, 2003 and subsequently the father of the appellant underwent an eye operation in April, 2003. It is noteworthy that the details regarding the date of sufferance of the fracture and the treatment of it have not been either mentioned in the application or in the affidavit filed in support of the application. Likewise, the details of the eye operation of the father of the appellant regarding the date of surgery and discharge from the hospital for recovery have not been given except that it has been generally stated that the father is yet to recover. The purpose of the eye operation has also not been disclosed as to whether the surgery was required for removal of cataract or any other disease. Be that as it may, the whole months of May and June were allowed to be whiled away and the appeal was still not got prepared and filed before the State Commission. This is so, if the reason for not filing the appeal in the months of March and April be accepted as its face value in respect of the fracture of the leg of the mother and the eye operation of the appellant. The appellant has also not placed on record any document showing the treatment of fractured leg of his mother and for the eye operation of his father.

3. It is well settled proposition of law that each day’s delay is to be explained while seeking leave of the Court for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Reference may be made to the case of Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. O.P. Gauba, III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 National Commission & SC on Consumer Cases Page 2731 (NS), wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that each day’s delay is to be satisfactorily explained and the delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity.

4. In our considered opinion, the appellant has failed to prove that he 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, 1

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
986 read with Rule 8 Sub-rule (4) of 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.
O R