HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs KAMLESH SOOD

THE appellant Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter to be referred as HUDA) seeks condonation of delay, which initially was put as 114 days in filing this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 359 of 2001. THE application seeking condonation of delay supported with an affidavit of Shri Harish Chander Jain, H.C.S., Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar was placed on record. After examining the affidavit of Shri Harish Chander Jain, it was found that the number of days for which the delay was sought to be condoned was left blank, which was encircled with pencil. This affidavit also did not disclose the date when the certified copy of the judgment and order appealed against was received in the office of the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula.

SINCE the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay lacked details, the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate sought time to file a better affidavit giving particulars about the date when the certified copy of the impugned order was received and the grounds, which caused the delay. Eventually Shri Satbir Singh, H.C.S. Secretary, HUDA, Panchkula filed his affidavit for and on behalf of the Chief Administrator, HUDA wherein the date of the receipt of the copy of the order appealed against was disclosed as 28.10.2003. The certified copy had been personally obtained by the Counsel for HUDA Mrs. Suraksha Sharda, Advocate who by her letter sent the same to the appellant. The appellant was thus in the know of the order of the District Forum appealed against as it received the certified copy on 28.10.2003 and thus the period of limitation of 30 days for filing the appeal commenced w.e.f. 29.10.2003 and it expired on 27.11.2003. The appeal was in fact actually filed on 21.2.2005. The delay occurred in filing the appeal is of a period of 447 days. The notice of the application seeking condonation of delay was sent to the respondent who put in appearance through Mr. B.B. Mittal, Advocate. Reply to the application seeking condonation of delay was filed.

Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the delay, which occurred, is procedural in nature and for the laxity on the part of the Estate Officer, Hisar has been viewed seriously and disciplinary action is being taken against him for causing delay in filing the appeal against the order of the District Forum.

A narration of events mentioned in the second affidavit of Shri Satbir Singh, Secretary, HUDA, Panchkula would go to show that the matter was taken up not in right earnest but time was whiled away on one pretext or the other and even a change of the Counsel who had earlier been entrusted with the filing of appeal was thought to be changed and in fact changed and another Counsel was engaged vide order dated 4.1.2005. All these steps, which have been taken or are likely to be taken, read as a whole, do not present a picture of pursuing the matter of filing of appeal in right earnest and the very sufficiency of the grounds for condoning the delay is rather missing and whatever grounds have been mentioned are such, which cannot be said to be a proper muchless a sufficient ground to condone the delay. It may be mentioned that the provision as contained in 1st Proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as C.P. Act) as amended by Amendment Act No. 62 of 2002 shows that the State Commission still has to examine sufficiency of the reasons, which led to the delayed filing of the appeal, for condoning the delay and to entertain the application. It is well settled now that the delay cannot be condoned for the sake of generosity or for that matter on mere asking by the appellant. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. O.P. Gauba, III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC). Earlier affidavit, which was filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay cannot be treated to have been taken off the record and if we examine the contents of this affidavit and the subsequent affidavit, it would appear that the first affidavit filed by Shri Harish Chander Jain, Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar in support of the application seeking condonation of delay did not contain the actual date of receipt of the copy of the impugned order and the other reasons, which have now been supplied in the subsequent affidavit filed, which is dated 5.7.2005 and sworn by Shri Satbir Singh, Secretary, HUDA, Panchkula. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to satisfy us that the delay of 447 days in filing this appeal was on account of sufficient reasons and as such, we find that the application seeking condonation of delay lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and order of the District Forum is dismissed as being without merit and the appeal filed is dismissed as being barred by limitation. The parties are left to bear their costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.