SIDHU ENTERPRISES vs Union of India

THIS appeal by the complainant-appellant is directed against the order dated January 31, 1991, of the District Forum, Bhatinda, in complaint case No. 17 of 1990 on its file inter alia on the ground that the respondents be directed to pay Rs. 70,000/- to the appellant on account of compensation for the loss suffered by him for the period of non-installation of telephone connection.

THE appeal was filed on 15.4.1991. Even taking into consideration the time taken for supplying the certified copy, the appeal should have been filed on 20.3.1991. THErefore, there was clear delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. THEre was no application for condonation of delay. Despite service neither the appellant nor his Counsel has appeared in the Court. Mr. Kulwinder Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that it was imperative for the appellant to apply for condonation of delay and by not doing so, there was clear violation of the mandatory provision of Rule 8 (4) of the Consumer Protection (Punjab) Rules, 1987 (for short ''the Rules'') and that on this ground alone, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. To buttress his arguments he has cited a case Haryana Agro Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Virender Pal Singh & Brothers I (1991) CPJ 672. There appears to be substance in this contention of the learned Counsel. Rule 8(4) of the Rules reads as under:- "When the appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation as specified in the Act, the memorandum shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit setting forth the fact on which the appellant relies to satisfy the State Commission that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation."

The provision is mandatory. In the instant case, it is obvious that the appeal was instituted manifestly beyond 25 days after the period of limitation was over. That being so, it was imperative on the part of the appellant to enclose an application alongwith the appeal memo for condonation of delay as contemplated in the said rule but he has not done so.

IN view of the above, there is no option but to hold that on the point of violation of the statutory rule, the present appeal must fail on the bar of limitation and it is ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly.