HUDA vs SATPAL

IN this appeal, filed against order dated 13.12.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 647 of 2000 filed by respondent, Mr. Satpal, there is an application supported with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The contention of the appellant, HUDA in the application seeking condonation of delay is that copy of the impugned order of the District Forum-II was received in the Legal Cell on 9.1.2002 and was marked to the Counsel for drafting and filing the appeal on 31.1.2002. The Counsel for the appellant actually received the papers along with certified copy of the order on 4.2.2002 and sent the memo of appeal, affidavit and other relevant papers for signatures and attestation to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshethra on 8.2.2002. The Counsel received the papers duly signed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra on 23.2.2002 and filed the appeal on 25.2.2002.

IT has been contended in Para 4 of the application and deposed in Para 4 of the affidavit of Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra that the delay occurred in filing this appeal, is not intentional and bona fide. IT was prayed that delay of 15 days in filing the appeal be condoned. Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate appearing for Ms. Suraksha Sharda, Advocate for the appellant, HUDA, contended that the delay was not caused intentionally and as such the delay deserves to be condoned. The attention of Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate was invited to the certified copy of the impugned order of the District Forum-II which shows that it had been received in the office of appellant on 7.1.2002 and was sent to the Legal Cell which affixed its stamp and filled Diary No. as 378 dated 9.1.2002. There is yet another seal affixed by C.A., HUDA showing Diary No. 220 dated 8.1.2002 with an endorsement made on the left margin of the order "Please put up urgently". It will, thus, appear that the order had infact been received in the office of the appellant on 7.1.2002 and the period of limitation would start running from that date and not from 9.1.2002 as has been alleged in the application and affidavit. That being so, the period of limitation of 30 days as provided by Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short to be referred as the C.P. Act), would expire on 6.2.2002. The appeal was filed on 25.2.2002. The total number of days for which the delay occurred would come to 19 days as against 15 days mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay. The application and affidavit have not disclosed the date of receipt of the copy of the order in the office of the appellant as 7.1.2002. Apart from it, neither in the application nor in the affidavit any reasons have been shown which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as required by Proviso to Section 15 of the C.P. Act and under Rule 8(4) of Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. There is only a general statement contained in Para 4 of the application as well as the affidavit that the delay occurred in filing this appeal is not intentional and bona fide. Be that as it may, it was the duty of the appellant to furnish the reasons regarding the delay which is sought to be condoned under Proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act read with Rule 8(4) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987.

We find from narration of the dates in Paras 2 and 3 of the application, that the appellant kept the impugned order from 7.1.2002 upto 31.1.2002 when it is said to have been marked to the Counsel for drafting the appeal. It means that about 24 days'' time was taken by the appellant in taking a decision to file the appeal and sending the papers to its Counsel for drafting the appeal. Even, thereafter, it took 4 days'' time in the actual handing over of the papers to the Counsel for the appellant, who received the same on 4.2.2002. Not only this, the papers were sent by the Counsel for signatures and attestation to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra on 8.2.2002 and the same were received back on 23.2.2002. It means that 15 days further time was taken by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra only for signatures and attestation of the papers. In our considered view, the officers of the appellant were quite careless in dealing with the matter regarding the filing of the appeal and there are no reasons, much less sufficient reasons, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay lacks merit and is dismissed. The appeal is dismissed as being barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.