BHARTIYA SHIKSHA PARISHAD, LUCKNOW vs RANJEET KAUR

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed on 9.8.2002 i.e., after the lapse of more than one year, against the order dated 29.6.2001, passed in Case No. 14/99 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called ''Distt. Forum'' for short). As the appeal is time barred the appellant has also filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, together with an affidavit of Dr. Vijay Agarwal, Secretary of the appellant organization.

THE reason for delay assigned in the application is that the case was decided ex parte, hence the opposite party/appellant had no knowledge of the order till the notice dated 30.3.2002, of Execution Case was received by the appellant company. THEreafter, application for restoration was filed before the Distt. Forum and the same was registered as M. No. 16/02 but later it was dismissed on 9.7.2002. It is further stated that after obtaining certified copy of the order and other documents from the record of Distt. Forum, appeal was filed. THE appellant has also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and prayed that the delay be condoned. The learned Counsel for the respondent, though did not file any written reply to the aforesaid application but vehemently opposed the same and alleged that the very fact that the appellant remained absent before the Distt. Forum does not entitle him to any special privilege rather it demonstrates that he has been callous and negligent towards the proceedings. It was submitted that the application is mala fide and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. Perused the record of the District Forum. It appears from the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and also from the record that the notice of the complaint before the District Forum was duly served on the opposite party/appellant. It also appears from the record that the opposite party/appellant had also sent letters to the District Forum but never bothered to make appearance in the complaint and consequently was proceeded ex parte. It also appears from the record that the Distt. Forum had, on 9.7.2001, sent a copy of the ex parte order dated 21.6.2001 to the appellant per Regd. A/D post. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant had no knowledge of the order. Further, even if the knowledge of the order dated 21.6.2001 is to be taken from the date when the appellant received notice of the execution case, the appellant has, though mentioned the date of issuance of notice i.e., 30.3.2002, but has failed to mention the date as to when the said notice was received. The application for condonation of delay also does not contain the date as to when the application for restoration (in fact an application for setting aside ex parte order) was filed. Only very casual and generalized statements have been made in the application as well as the affidavit filed in support thereof.

IT is clear that the opposite party/appellant has acted throughout in a very callous and casual manner. Delay of each day ought to have been explained but the appellant has utterly failed to assign proper cause for delay. Such an attitude on the part of the appellant does not and cannot demonstrate that there was just and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. In our opinion, the appellant has utterly failed to put forth any just and sufficient cause for 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 No. 1 which is quantified at Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only. Appeal dismissed.