SAREE CENTER, SODHI EMPORIUM vs SARJIT KAUR

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Ambala dated the 13th of June, 1991. However, it has been preferred before this Commission on the 22nd of July, 1991 and thus is beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days under Section 15 of the Act by as many as 10 days. Consequently, it has been listed for hearing on the preliminary issue of limitation.

WHAT first meets the eye herein is the mandatory prescription vide Rule 8 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 which requires that whenever the appeal is presented beyond time the same has to be accompanied by an application for the condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit supporting the same. In the present case the appellant has failed to comply with either of the two statutory requirements. The appeal is thus liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Apart from the above we have heard Mr. Ashwani Sodhi for the appellant at very considerable length as regards any sufficient case for preferring the appeal beyond time. Despite considerable latitude having been given to him he has been unable to show any plausible reason which could possibly mitigate the considerable delay in preferring the appeal. The order under challenge has thus become final in favour of the respondent''s consumer. In view of the fact that no justifiable cause is being made out on behalf of the appellant, it would be a patent hardship to the respondent to reopen the matter after a vested right in her favour as accured by the passage of time.

In the light of the above, we find no reason whatsoever to condon the delay and the appeal must fail at the very threshhold against the bar of limitation. Appeal dismissed.