MANAGING DIRECTOR, MARUTI UDYOG LTD. vs RAJESH MITTAL

THIS appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act). The grounds urged in the application seeking condonation of delay show that the certified copy of the impugned order was issued on 23.7.2003 and received by the appellants on 4.8.2003. It has further been alleged that Maruti Udyog Limited, the appellant is a joint venture of Government of India and Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan. Under the process of disinvestments, the Government of India has decided to offload 25% of its equity through Initial Public Offerings and appointed the Merchant Bankers for due diligence in order to assess the company''s assets and contingent liabilities under litigation. It is alleged that during the said process, all 891 Court Cases files were physically inspected in order to assess the contingent liability of the appellant company for preparing Red Herring Prospectus. During the said inspection, it is alleged, the relevant case file with impugned order was misplaced which caused delay in filing this appeal.

THE appellant also received a notice of execution under Section 25 of the C.P. Act from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 16.9.2003. After receiving the notice, search was made to find the concerned file which was traced on 20.9.2003 tagged with some other file during the process of disinvestments. THE ground of appeal which was mentioned in the application was supported by an affidavit of S. Ravi Aiyar, Company Secretary and Chief Legal Officer, Maruti Udyog Limited. Para No. 1 of the affidavit is introductory describing the status of the deponent. THE second and the last para reads as under : "2. That the accompanying condonation of delay application has been prepared by my Counsel under my instructions, the contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge and the same be read and treated as part of this affidavit as those are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity."

It is relevant to find that the necessary facts requiring consideration for condonation of delay have not been stated on oath in the affidavit of S. Ravi Aiyar who has only deposed in Para 2 that the contents of the application are verified to be true and correct to his knowledge and the same be read and treated as part of the affidavit which are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. Be that as it may, the grounds, which are sought to be urged for condonation of delay do not appear to be valid and genuine. The impugned order of the District Forum was duly received by the appellant and in case the appellant was unable to locate the order, another copy could be applied from the District Forum and an appeal could have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation rather than the efforts made after the service of notice from the District Forum in the execution application.

The application seeking condonation of delay was opposed by the respondent who filed written reply stating therein that the plea of disinvestment is not made the basis of condonation of delay and the application does not contain any sufficient ground. It is further mentioned in the reply that the appellant has not given the number of days for which the delay is sought to be condoned. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay is made on behalf of the respondent.

AFTER carefully considering the entire matter, we find that the grounds are not satisfactory and valid for condoning the delay and particularly in the light of the decision of the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. O.P. Gauba, III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases 2731 (NS), wherein the Hon''ble National Commission has held that each day''s delay is to be satisfactorily explained and the delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity. We are of the considered opinion, that the application seeking condonation of delay lacks merit and is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed as being barred by limitation. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.