H S Arya vs Ceo Sbi International Card

THIS appeal has been filed on 6.10.2005, against the order, dated 13.7.2005, passed in Case No. 188/2004 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg. As the appeal is time barred the appellant has also filed an application under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, and has also filed affidavit of the appellant.

THE reason for delay as stated in the application is that the complainant/appellant lives at Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund and his Counsel had told him the he need not come on each day and every date of hearing and had further told him that he will inform the appellant whenever he would be required to come. It is further stated in the application that the Counsel did not inform him regarding the impugned order prior to 2005. The appellant received knowledge of the impugned order only on 3.2005 when he contacted his Counsel in his office at Raipur. Thereafter, he instructed his Counsel to file appeal and on 6.2005 the appeal was filed. It is stated that there was good and sufficient cause for the delay of 52 days and has prayed that the same be condoned. 3. The respondent did not file any reply though the learned Counsel vehemently opposed the application. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that after receiving information regarding the impugned order he took immediate steps for filing appeal and the appeal has been filed within three days from the date of knowledge. He further submitted that lack of information was the sole ground for delay in filing the appeal and he further submitted that the delay was bona fide and deserves to be condoned. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the application is mala fide and deserves to be dismissed. He further submitted that the appellant has failed to assign any good or sufficient cause for the delay and also that the delay is enormous and the same cannot be condoned.

HEARD the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record of the District Forum. It appears from perusal of record that the complainants Counsel had received copy of the impugned order on 22.7.2005. Knowledge to the Counsel implies knowledge to the party. However, the appellant has stated that his Counsel did not inform him regarding the impugned order and he came to know about the order when he personally contacted his Counsel at his office at Raipur on 3.10.2005. It is not stated in the application that after how many days or months did the appellant contact his Counsel. It is the duty of the parties to keep themselves apprised of the development in the proceedings. At least the complainant cannot be expected to sit relaxed after filing complaint for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000. If he has done so, he has done it at his own peril. At least it is expected of a reasonable man who files a complaint to enquire about the case from his Counsel at least on telephone. The appellant has to assign just and sufficient ground for the delay and has to explain delay of each day. Simply saying that he did not have knowledge prior to the date on which he personally contacted the Counsel cannot be accepted to be a good ground.

WE are of the opinion that 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. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.