ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD vs HIRALAL SAHU

-THE appellant has preferred this appeal on 22. 11. 2006, against the order dated 28. 8. 2006, passed in Case No. 70/2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon, (hereinafter called the ''district Forum'' for short ). The appellant has also filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the instant appeal. In support of the aforesaid application, the appellant has also filed an affidavit of Mr. Mukesh Varma. Subsequently, an affidavit of Mr. Adil Ahemed was also filed on 21. 12. 2006. The appellant has also placed certain documents on record.

IT is stated in the application that the O. P. /appellant did not receive notice sent by the District Forum as the appellant had shifted its office from Aishwarya Chambers to Aparajitha Complex, two years back. The complainant was aware of this change of address but deliberately got notice served on the previous address. It is further stated in the application that the appellant is a limited company having a clerk to receive the post hence there is no point in not receiving. Had the notice of complaint come to the office it would have been received. The District Forum passed ex parte order on 28. 8. 2006 and copy of the said order was received by the appellant together with the execution petition on 3. 11. 2006. The appellant came to know of the order on 3. 11. 2006 only. It is prayed in the application that the delay in filing appeal may be condoned. The respondent has filed reply to the aforesaid application denying that the notice of the District Forum was not served. The appellant has not disclosed any reason for delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the application may be dismissed subject to cost.

Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. It was contended on behalf of the appellant/opposite party that the sole cause of delay was that the appellant did not receive notice of the District Forum due to change of office premises on 1. 10. 2004 and came to know regarding the order only on 3. 11. 2006 when a copy of the order was served with the execution petition. From the date of knowledge, the appeal is within time. The delay is only technical and may be condoned.

THE appellant has filed copy of Lease and License Agreement to demonstrate that they had hired the premises on lease w. e. f. 1. 10. 2004. However, there are various receipts issued by the appellant that have been placed on record and the same have been issued much after October, 2004 but bear the same address as has been mentioned in the complaint. In the circumstances, it cannot be believed that appellant had shifted its office to some other place. Even if they had shifted they were under an obligation to make suitable arrangements for redirecting the post addressed to them. Hence, they cannot be permitted to take shelter of the change of address. It is further noted that the appellant has stated that they came to know of the order when copy of the order was served with execution petition on 3. 11. 2006. However, this statement is nullified by the document placed on record by the appellant himself. Show Cause Notice issued on 4. 11. 2006 regarding Execution Case No. 50/2006 can, under no circumstances be expected to reach the appellant one day prior to its issuance i. e. , 3. 11. 2006 as the appellants have alleged. In the circumstances, it is evident that the statement made by the appellant is not true and they were aware of the impugned order from an earlier date. Such a false statement clearly reveals that the delay is not bona fide.

IN our opinion, the appellant has utterly failed to put forth any just and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal also stands dismissed. The appellant shall bear their own cost of appeal and pay that of the respondent which is quantified at Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand ). Appeal dismissed.