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

M/s. Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. v/s Prem Narayan

    First Appeal No. 43 of 2014
    Decided On, 05 May 2014
    At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
    By, MEMBER

Judgment Text
Salma Noor, Member:

1. This appeal by the complainant of the case No. 619/2010 is directed against the order dated 23.08.2013 of the District Forum (North-West) Shalimar Bagh, Delhiwhereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

3. We have heard Sh. Mukesh Hudda, Counsel for the appellant and respondent in person on the application for condonation of delay and perused the material on record.

4. According to the applicant/appellant there is a delay of 58 days in filing the appeal but the actual delay involved in filing the appeal is of 89 days.

5. The applicant/appellant seeks delay to be condoned, mainly on the grounds that the office of the District Forum took time to provide him the certified copy of the impugned order and when the copy was ready, mother of the authorised representative of the Company, who was supposed to collect the order admitted to the hospital. Another ground mentioned is that the authorized signatory went to his native place in Himachal Pradesh with his mother and the appeal was signed only after his return from Himachal Pradesh on 12.01.2014. The applicant/appellant has not filed any supporting documents to prove his above contentions neither Medical certificate of his mother’s illness nor any journey ticket to Himachal. Therefore, the applicant/appellant is miserably failed to give any bonafide reason to support its application for condonation of delay.

6. 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 petition stands properly examined. 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.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court after exhaustive considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Orien Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under:-

'We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed to redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time

The expression 'sufficient cause' employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statues is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate – Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106'.

8. Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed:

'It is also opposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras'.

9. The Law of the Supreme Court followed by National Commission and this Commission in this regard is well settled. Reference can be made to few of such cases cited below:

i) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Gurinder Kaur Kohli-III 2010 CPJ 248 (NC).

ii) Huda Vs Krishna Devi – III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC).

iii) Huda Vs Randhir Singh – III 2010 CPJ

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
202 (NC). iv) Narayana I.I.T. Academy Vs. R.K. Sharma- III 2010 191 (DSCDRC). 10. Hence, the request for condoning the delay is turned down and the application for the purpose moved by the appellant is rejected. 11. Consequently we dismiss the appeal on the ground of its being time barred. 12. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.