PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SURINDER KAUR

IT''s an application for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 4.3.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

THE only ground taken by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay reads as under : "2. That the applicant is an instrumentality of State and file have to move from one desk to an another and in the present case the certified copy received on 1.4.2002 by the appellant. THEreafter, the legal opinion was sought regarding the filing of the appeal and further record of the case was also sought from the concerned Advocate in the District Forum. Due to these formalities and reasons there is delay of 7 days which may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."

Notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent filed the reply. In the reply the respondent has mentioned as under : "2. That the averments made in para No. 2 of the application are vague and the applicant is not entitled to any special treatment in the matter of condonation of delay merely because it is an instrumentality of State. THE facts stated in this para do not reveal that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing appeal within limitation to justify the condonation of delay. It is submitted that the applicant has intentionally withheld all the material dates from this Hon''ble Commission i.e. the date on which the file as stated was sent by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali to the Chief Administrator of PUDA at Chandigarh; the date on which the opinion is stated to have been sought and the date on which the record was sought from the Advocate and the date on which the said record was made available. THE possibility of the concerned file remaining with the Estate Office till the last day of limitation cannot be ruled out. Since the applicant has intentionally withheld all the material dates from this Hon''ble State Commission as such the explanation offered by the applicant do not constitute a sufficient cause so as to warrant the condonation of delay. Hence this application is liable to be rejected."

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through their pleadings. It has not been stated as to from which desk to which desk the file started moving and then stopped at once. Neither any date has been mentioned nor any period is given as to where the file remained and for what purpose and what were the genuine reasons therefor. A stereo-type application has been framed without giving any cogent reason to explain the delay in filing the appeal. In accordance with the purpose, object and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Hon''ble National Commission has ruled that in Consumer Forum there is a set time schedule and all attempts have to be made to decide the matter within the period fixed. Parties have to be extremely vigilant so that the consumer does not suffer on account of delay. The Hon''ble National Commission has also ruled therein that whether it is a delay of two days or more, sufficient cause has to be shown to condone the delay. Relevant part of the order of the Hon''ble National Commission passed in Revision Petition No. 1257 of 2002, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr. v. Rakesh Kumar Garg, decided on 31st of July, 2002, reads as under : "This is a usual story of time taken by the department''s officials. In Consumer Forum there is a set time schedule and all attempts have to be made to decide the matters within the period fixed. Parties have to be extremely vigilant specially like the petitioner so that consumer does not suffer on account of delay. It is not the question of 26 days delay or more which would be relevant. We cannot entertain any argument that when there is a delay of 26 days the Forum should exercise its discretion in condoning the delay to the disadvantage to the respondent-complainant. Whether it is a delay of two days or more sufficient cause has to be shown to condone the delay. We do not find any merit in the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner and we uphold the order of the State Commission. This revision petition is dismissed."

In the case in hand, as discussed above, we do not find any sufficient ground to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this application, which is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.