CORPORATION LTD. vs ROSHAN LAL

HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the application seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the appeal against impugned order dated 13.1.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

THE copy of the impugned order was received in the office of the appellant on 31.1.2003 (vide Para 3 of the application). THE file and the copy of the impugned order were sent to Tourist and Travel Wing which was busy in organizing the festival of gardens which was to take place w.e.f. 28.2.2003 to 1.3.2003. After the festival of gardens was over, the file was taken up by the aforesaid wing on 8.3.2003 and sent to the Head Office which referred the matter to the Counsel seeking his advise on 10.3.2003. THE Counsel gave his advise that the appeal was barred by limitation. THEreafter, the file was processed at various levels and again sent to the Counsel for advise on 13.3.2003. After receiving the file from the Counsel it was decided to file an appeal. THE file was processed on 17.3.2003 and 18.3.2003 as 15.3.2003 and 16.3.2003 were holidays and vide letter dated 18.3.2003 it was communicated to the Counsel to prepare the appeal. THE said letter was received by the Counsel on 20.3.2003 as 19.3.2003 happened to be holiday on account of Holi. The appeal was eventually filed on 24.3.2003. It has been contended that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the aforesaid reason and there is no intentional delay in filing the appeal. The affidavit has been filed in support of these averments by Shri Vipin Rishi, Manager, Tours and Travels, CITCO, Chandigarh who has verified the contents of his affidavit to his personal knowledges as well as the knowledge derived from the official records of the Corporation.

Notice of the application seeking condonation of delay was sent to the respondents who appeared and filed reply by way of affidavit of Shri Virender Kumar wherein the respondents took pleas regarding the merit of the case and contended that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The respondent further contended that the appeal was preferred totally on untenable grounds which were opposed and denied by the respondents.

A perusal of the application and the affidavit seeking condonation of delay would go to show that there is no mention of the dealing the file after the receipt of the impugned order on 31.1.2003 excepting that the file and the copy of the order were sent to Tours and Travel Wing on receiving the copy of the impugned order. There is no mention of date of sending the file to the aforesaid wing for processing and taking a decision for filing the appeal. The matter was allowed to be delayed and no reasons have been given regarding the dealing of the matter for filing the appeal. The only ground which is mentioned is that the festival of gardens was to take place from 28.2.2003 to 2.3.2003 and on account of it, the entire Wing of Tours and Travel remained busy in organizing the festival and all the files were kept aside. After the festival was over, all the pending files were taken up and on 8.3.2003 the file of this case was taken up.

THE period of limitation had already expired on 2.3.2003 and there is no reason much-less sufficient reason given for the period intervening 2.3.2003 to 7.3.2003 for not taking up the file for taking a decision to file an appeal. Even after the file was taken up on 8.3.2003, it was dealt within in a very casual manner and time was allowed to be whiled away. THE matter was referred on two occasions to the Counsel seeking his advise for filing the appeal and eventually the papers were sent to the Lawyer for filing an appeal on 20.3.2003. THE appeal was prepared and filed on 24.3.2003. THEse averments clearly go to show that the appellant took up the matter of filing the appeal in a very casual manner and the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Apart from it, there is no explanation for each day''s delay after the expiry of the period of limitation in filing the appeal as has been laid down by the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of O.P. Gauba v. Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 National Commission & Supreme Court on Consumer Cases 2731 (NS). Resultantly, we find no merit in the application seeking condonation of delay, which is dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed as being barred by limitation. Application dismissed.