ANIL MINHAS vs KARNAIL SINGH

COUNSEL for the petitioner present. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by Dr. Anil Minhas on the ground of delay. There was a delay of about 4 months. The petitioner has explained the delay in para Nos. 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay. Para Nos. 3 and 4 are reproduced here as under: - "3. That it is respectfully submitted that complaint was decided by the Ld. District Forum below on 4.12.2013 and the copy was attested and supplied on 17..12.2013. 4. That it is respectfully submitted that applicant/appellant came over to Shimla, got prepared the appeal for the purpose of filing the same in this Hon''ble Commission. It is submitted that instead of filing the complaint, because of inadvertent mistake, the appeal was sent back to the applicant with letter to append signatures and to send the same again. Applicant came over to Shimla, but it transpired that counsel for the applicant is out of station in connection with his personal work and when was contacted on telephone, it was informed that counsel of the applicant will come over to Shimla only in the second week of April, 2014. Thereafter, applicant came over to Shimla in the second week of April, 2012 and now got the appeal prepared and is being filed after a delay of 120 days".

THE State Commission dismissed the said application and made the following observations: - "It is not indicated in the application as to when did the applicant/appellant come to Shimla to engage the counsel. Also, the explanation offered seems to be incorrect. It is stated that memo of appeal was got prepared by the applicant/appellant on his first visit to Shimla, but he forget to append his signature thereon and, therefore, his counsel sent it to him by post for appending his signatures. Memo of appeal bears the typed date as ''18.04.2014''. That means, he came to Shimla for the first time on or around 18.04.2014, and got the memo of appeal prepared. By that time, appeal was already barred by around four months'' time. No explanation for this delay has been given. Hence, the application is dismissed."

IN addition we have noted that the name of the local Advocate did not see the light of the day. The affidavit of the counsel was also not filed. The present age is the age of mobile phones. The message can be conveyed to the OP within no time, in a Jiffy. The speed post communication can be pressed into service at any time. The day to day delay was not explained. The case is hopelessly barred by time. This view finds support from the following authorities. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63 , held that "It is also apposite 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". This must be mentioned here that the authority in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority pertains to the Consumer Protection Act.

SIMILAR view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 1 CutLT 188), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361, Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 1 SCR 1045 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, 1977 AIR(SC) 2221.

MOREOVER , in a recent case the order was passed by Hon''ble Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon''ble Mr. Adarsh Goel in the case of M/s Jeevan Diesels Electricals Ltd. and Anr. Versus M/s Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22240 -22241/2014 decided on 25.08.2014, where delay of 101 days was not condoned.

IN another case titled as Rakesh Kumar Namdev Versus Ashok Leyland Finance Company Ltd. in Special Leave to Appeal (C ) No(s). 17252/2014 decided on 30.07.2014, wherein the Apex Court refused to condone the delay of 131 days.

THE Apex Court in the case "Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.", decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upheld the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.

SIMILAR view was taken by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board and Anr. V. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission where 77 days delay was not condoned and again delay of 78 days was not condoned in the case reported in M/s Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.07.2013.

THE Revision Petition is dismissed being hopelessly barred by time. Even on merits the case of the petitioner has not got any force.