BANK OF PUNJAB LTD. vs USHA RANI

THE appellant seeks condonation of delay of 15 days in filing this appeal against order dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh [for short, hereinafter, to be referred as District Forum-II] in Complaint Case No. 167 of 2002, Smt. Usha Rani v. Bank of Punjab.

NOTICE of the application seeking condonation of delay was issued to the respondent, who put in appearance through her authorised representative, Mr. Jitin Talwar. The reason mentioned in para 2 of the application seeking condonation of delay as also in para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the said application is that the then Branch Manager, namely, Sh. Baljit Singh, received the copy of the order from the District Forum-II and he kept the same in his drawer and did not send the same to the Competent Authority for taking a decision regarding the filing of the appeal and thereafter about 20 days back from the date the appeal was prepared, the said Branch Manager, Sh. Baljit Singh, left for abroad. The certified copy of the order was traced out 4-5 days prior to the date of preparation of the application/affidavit seeking condonation of delay.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Bank of Punjab, contended that there is delay of only 15 days and the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice as the employee of the Bank, Sh. Baljit Singh (the then Branch Manager) had kept the certified copy of the impugned order in his drawer and did not send it to the competent authority.

HAVING carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as after going through the contents of para No. 2 of the application and the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are not sufficient for condoning the delay. The appellant cannot take advantage of the negligent act of its own employee. It has not been disclosed as to under what circumstances Sh. Baljit Singh was permitted to leave the country to go abroad without handing over the due charge of his post as well as the important papers kept by him to his successor. Moreover, the deponent of the affidavit, namely, Sh. Lalit Kumar, Branch Manager, is not obviously in the personal knowledge of the facts described in para 2 of the application and it appears that he has mechanically signed the affidavit without appreciating that the same was not in his knowledge, much less the personal knowledge. The deponent, Sh. Lalit Kumar is the successor in office of Sh. Baljit Singh, who had received the certified copy of the impugned order. The Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, while considering the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, in the case of "Vice-Chairman, CCIII (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 CONSUMER 2732 (NS), has held as under: "....In our view this does not constitute a valid and sufficient cause for the exercise of our discretion to condone the delay. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion. It was the duty of the DDA to establish as to how the matter was dealt with at all levels and each day''s delay had to be satisfactorily explained. Inter office consultation for prolonged periods cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity because the process of working in D.D.A. has resulted in the delay. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the appeal dismissed as barred by time."

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed as being barred by limitation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.