D.D.A. vs TIRATH DAS ARORA

THIS appeal has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) against the order of the District Forum No.1 by which the appellant (DDA) has been directed to refund Rs. 26,000/- to the respondent alongwith interest @ 15% p.a.

A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the appeal is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to an application dated 25.9.92 for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. It is stated therein that the copy of the impugned order dated 6th March, 1992/ 17th March, 92 was received in the office of the appellant on 30.3.92. The delay took place due to the reason, that the entry of the case in the D.D.A. record, was in the name of Shri Tirath Dass Arora whereas the name in the order is shown as Shri T.D. Arora. There being thousands of cases in DDA, the correct entry could not be located for many days. Thereafter it took time to complete office formalities and for obtaining order of the competent authority for filing the appeal. It is next pleaded that further delay, took place as the competent officer, who was required to file the affidavit was on leave. It is relevant to point out that the Counsel for the appellant did not file the certified copy of the judgment along with the memorandum of the appeal and that has been filed by him today before the Commission.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, the rules have been framed by the Delhi State known as Delhi Consumer Protection Rules. Rule 8 relates to the procedure for hearing appeals. Sub-rule 3 of the said rule provides that each memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by the certified copy of the order of the District Forum. From a reading of the sub-rule it is evident that the appeal should be accompanied by the certified copy of the order. In case it is not done, the appeal is no appeal in the eye of law. If the copy of the order is filed after the filing of the appeal it shall be deemed to have been filed on the day when the certified copy of the order has been filed. In the present case, therefore, the appeal shall be deemed to have been filed today. The certified copy of the appeal according to the appellant was received on 30th March, 1992. Thus, the appeal has been filed after about one year and six months. Reasonable explanation has been given as to why the certified copy of the order was not filed by the appellant. Even no application was moved by them for permission to file the appeal without certified copy. It is a settled proposition of law that each day''s delay in filing the appeal has to be explained by the appellant. The appellant as already mentioned above has taken the plea that the file of the case could not be traced and it took some time in taking the decision regarding filing of the appeal. It is further stated that the Commissioner was on leave when the appeal had been drafted and his absence delayed the matter further, as his affidavit had to be attached. We are not convinced with the reasons given by the appellant. In our opinion they have utterly failed to explain the delay. They have not given the dates, when the file was traced and from what date to what date the Commissioner was on leave. Moreover, the Commissioner''s affidavit could be filed even later. It is also unbelievable that the office could not trace the file on account of name of the complainant having been given in short form. As already mentioned, the delay in filing the certified copy of the order of the District Forum has also not been explained properly.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Ramagowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897. THE facts of that case are distinguishable and the observation in that case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal being barred by time, is also dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.