INTIMATE DRYCLEANERS vs VINOD KUMAR ARYA

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 1.1.1999, passed by District Forum (South), in Complaint Case No. 3249/1997 entitled Shri Vinod Kumar Arya v. Intimate Drycleaners.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, had filed a complaint, before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act, averring that the respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar Arya had given four saries and a gents coat to the appellant on 29.11.1997 for the purposes of dry cleaning and the appellant after receiving the above mentioned clothes had issued a receipt bearing No. 1953. THE respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Arya was required to pay Rs. 200/- on account of dry cleaning charges of the above mentioned clothes. It was stated in the complaint filed by the respondent that when the respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, went to collect the clothes from the respondent on 11.12.1997, he found that all the four saries had been damaged and were in a torn condition. However, the gents coat, given for the purposes of dry cleaning, was in a good condition. It was stated that the appellant had retained those saries asking the respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar Arya to come on the next day. On 14.12.1997, the delivery of the saries in question was given to the respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Arya by the appellant. THE grievance of the respondent, in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum, was that the four saries, given to the appellant for purposes of dry cleaning had been badly damaged and the appellant refused to replace the same or to pay any compensation for the damage caused to the saries which were stated to be almost new having been worn only once or twice. THE respondent in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, had claimed a compensation amounting to Rs. 22,600/-. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has partly allowed the complaint and has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Arya a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation together with interest @ 18% per annum.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the authorised representative of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, a person, aggrieved by an order, made by the District Forum, can prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of order. However, proviso to Section 15 of the Act provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above said period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the same within the above said period. The words ''sufficient cause'', occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ''sufficient cause'', though deserves to receive a liberal interpretation, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bonafide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though, no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ''sufficient cause'' in a given case, yet, again, as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ''sufficient cause''. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. Admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days because the order being impugned in the present proceedings was passed by the learned District Forum on 1.1.1999 and the present appeal has been filed in this Commission on 21.8.2001 i.e. after a lapse of more than one year and seven months. Therefore, the question requiring consideration at the very threshold is as to whether the appellant has shown ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the appeal in time, within the meaning of proviso to Section 15 of the Act.

THE appellant neither in the body of the appeal has shown any cause what to say of sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time nor has filed any application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. In the presence of the above facts, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is decidedly barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed on the above ground alone. Moreover, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation is also devoid of substance on merits because on the basis of material on record it is apparent that though the order being impugned in the present proceedings is an ex-parte order, yet, it is not in dispute that the appellant had received four saries and one gents coat from the respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Arya for dry cleaning purposes on 29.11.1997 and a receipt bearing No. 1953 was issued to the respondent who was to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- to the appellant as dry cleaning charges in respect of the above mentioned clothes. The clothes were to be delivered back to the respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Arya after dry cleaning on 3.12.1997. It is also an admitted fact that on 11.12.1997 at the time of taking delivery of the above clothes, the respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Arya noticed that the saries in question were damaged and, therefore, on that date he (Shri Vinod Kumar Arya) took the delivery of gents coat only as the same was found in good condition leaving the saries with the appellant. On 14.12.1997, the respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Arya again approached the appellant for taking the delivery of the saries in question and on that date said Shri Vinod Kumar Arya refused to take delivery of the saries as the same were damaged. In the memo of appeal, in para 9, it is stated on behalf of the appellant that the customer refused to take the delivery even though the appellant offered him "to pay compensation for the stretched saries as per the terms and conditions offered on the receipt". The above admission on the part of the appellant in the memo of appeal virtually takes the bottom out of the case of the appellant insofar as the merits of the case are concerned. During the course of arguments, the authorised representative of the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum vide impugned order was on a higher side and at the most, the learned District Forum should have awarded a compensation of Rs. 250/- because the cost of the damaged saries was only Rs. 1,000/-. In our opinion, the above contention, advanced by the authorised representative of the appellant, is devoid of substance because no material has been produced by her before the District Forum or before us in support of the above contention advanced on behalf of the appellant and, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected summarily. No other point was pressed or urged. In view of the position explained above, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, in the given facts, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in-limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.