MAHARASHTRA SCOOTERS LTD.-/O.P. vs SH.HARIPRASAD

THE only question involved at this stage is whether the delay caused in submitting the appeal should be condoned. THE complainant-respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur. It was prayed by the complainant that the principal amount of Rs. 500/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. and costs of the complaint may be awarded. THE opposite party-appellant despite notice did not oppose the complaint and ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. THE District Forum by its order dated 27.8.1991 directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 500/- and also interest @ 18% from 11.12.90 within a period of one month. A sum of Rs. 200/- was awarded as costs to the complainant.

AGAINST the order dated 27.8.91 the appeal was filed on 16.11.91. Office reported that the appeal is barred by 57 days. An application for condonation of delay was submitted supported by affidavit of Shri J. Sridhar which was sworn on 29.11.91. After perusing the application and affidavit a notice was issued to the appellant-Counsel to show cause why the appeal be not rejected as barred by time. Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Advocate noted today''s date of hearing. He has not appeared today. The appeal was presented on 16.11.91. It is directed against the order dated 27.8.91. The application for certified copy was made on 28.10.91. Its delivery was much after the expiry of period of limitation. The date fixed for the issuance of the copy was 28.10.91. It was taken on 28.10.91. In the affidavit it has been stated that it was served with the notice issued by the Forum on 27.9.91 directing the appellant to show cause as to why the penal proceedings be not initiated for non-compliance of the order passed on 27.8.91. In the affidavit it has further been stated that after the receipt of the notice referred to above, the appellant vide its letter dated 7.10.91 applied to the District Forum through its dealer at Jaipur for the certified copy of the order passed by the Forum on 27.8.91 to enable the appellant either to comply with the cider or to file appeal against the same. According to the appellant the certified copy of the order was issued by the Forum on 28.10.91 and it was received by the appellant on 2.11.91. As the business establishment of the appellant was closed from 4.11.91 to 9.11.91 for Diwali festival, immediately thereafter the appellant proceeded to prepare appeal and filed it on 16.11.91. The appellant despite service of notice from the District Forum remained ex-parte before it. It is thus clear that the appellant bad knowledge about the proceedings of the complaint initiated by the complainant-respondent. As per showing of the appellant, on 27.9.91 it came to know about the order, still the application for certified copy was made 31 days after the date of the knowledge. The application for certified copy as stated above was made on 28.10.91. The period for filing the appeal is 30 days from the date of the order. It follows that even after acquiring knowledge about the order, the application for certified copy was made after 30days. The certified copy was ready on that day and it was delivered on the same day. The appeal was filed on 16.11.91. Proviso to Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under : - "Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period".

The appellant is required to show sufficient cause for each day after the expiry of the period of limitation. In A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 361 it was observed as under : - "...The context seems to suggest that "with in such period" means within the period which ends with the last date of limitation prescribed. In other words, in all cases falling under Sec.5 what the party has to show is why he did not file an appeal on the last day of limitation prescribed. That may inevitably mean that the party will have to show sufficient cause not only for not Cling the appeal on the last day but to explain the delay made thereafter day by day. In other words, in showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay the party may be called upon to explain for the whole of the delay covered by the period between the last day prescribed for filing the appeal and the day on which the appeal is filed..."

In A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2221 it was held as under : - "Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large majority of case-law has grown around Sec. 5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every day''s delay..."

These authorities are under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act which is peri-meteria with the proviso to Sec. 15 of the Act. It was incumbent on the appellant to explain each day''s delay after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is clear that the opposite party had knowledge about the proceedings before the District Forum. Even if they were not aware of the order dated 27.8.91 passed by the District Forum, still as per showing the appellant had come to know on 27.9.91. It could not take steps to file the appeal soon after and they submitted application for certified copy on 28.10.91 which was delivered on the same day. Even thereafter the appeal was filed on 16.11.91. The appellant has not succeeded in making out a sufficient cause. In these circumstances the appellant cannot be said to be vigilant and has not explained each day''s delay. No sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay.

The application for condonation of delay has no merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. It follows that the appeal of the appellant has also to be dismissed because of the bar of limitation.

THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed as barred by time. Appeal dismissed.