MODERN SUITINGS LTD. vs MRS. VYANKATESH MAIL SPEED TRANSPORT CO.

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission where the complainant, alleging deficiency in service rendered by the respondents, was dismissed on merits after hearing both the parties. This order was passed on 4.4.2002 and appeal before us has been filed on 30.10.2002 after a delay of 157 days. There is an application filed for condonation of this delay on the ground that one Mr. Arun Bhargava, Senior Vice President (Legal) fell ill sometimes in December, 2001 developing kidney problem and transplanation of kidneys took on 5.7.2002, resuming his duties with effect from 16.10.2002 and only then he came to know of the impugned order dated 4.4.2002 and immediately after this, under his instructions this appeal was filed on 30.10.2002. A plea is also made that a liberal view should be taken as regards condonation of delay, and litigant should not suffer because of technicalities of the procedural impediments particularly when the applicant Company is facing great financial losses.

IT is not disputed that the complainant is a registered Company under the Companies Act and has a full-fledged Board of Directors. IT is also not in dispute that this is an old dispute. On a complaint having been filed by the appellant before the State Commission on 1991, orders were passed by it granting certain reliefs. An application for re-hearing was made before the State Commission, which was dismissed on 24.2.1995. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the case was remanded to the State Commission by this Commission vide its order dated 3.10.1996. The State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint on merits. The above has been narrated to reiterate that the appellant/complainant is neither a new hand in the case nor a notice in litigation. The complainant is a Company. We are unable to appreciate how the illness of one person can affect the progress of a case before a Court or a Commission. There is the whole Board of Directors. There will be a Managing Director. There will be other staff in the Legal Cell duly aided by battery of lawyers. How come, shelter is now being taken behind the ailment of one person, explaining the delay. We cannot accept this plea not from a Company. Incidentally, the amount involved is about Rs. 3.5 lakhs and we cannot appreciate the arguments of learned Counsel for the applicant when he takes a plea that litigant should not suffer on account of technicalities when the Company is facing ''great financial losses''. The adjective ''great'' in the arguments begs question. Hon''ble Supreme Court has taken a serious view when sufficient cause has not been shown in explaining the delay. In Kerla Agro Machinery Corpn. v. Bijoy Kumar Roy, II (2002) SLT 267=2002 (3) CPR 107 (SC), Hon''ble Supreme Court held that question of limitation has to be considered seriously at all stages. It has also been held by the Apex Court that sufficient cause has to be shown explaining the delay. In the present case we are not satisfied that this has been done. Illness of one person in Public Company does not appeal to us to be sufficient cause for condoning this delay. If one was ill, there were many others to take the decision. We do not find that sufficient cause has been shown explaining the delay in filing the appeal by 157 days, thus holding this appeal as barred by limitation, hence dismissed. Appeal dismissed.