U.T.I. TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT. LTD. vs INDERCHAND KOTARI

THIS appeal arises out of the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) in Complaint No. 1101/2003. The appeal has been filed on 9.9.2004, as the same is belated an application for condonation of delay has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and an affidavit of Shri Rajesh Lokhande, Chief Manager has also been filed.

IT is stated in the application that the delay in filing appeal was due to the reason that though the order was received in the Corporate Office, Mumbai yet as there are several departments and sections, it took some time for the order to reach the concerned departments. IT is also stated that only Mumbai office was a party to the proceedings before the District Forum and the Raipur Branch Office was not a party and as such not aware of the factual matrix of the case and could not properly monitor the case. IT is further stated that the inadvertent delay has been caused due to complexity of facts involved in the matter as the appellant had to collect previous data and date wise NAV rate. Further that the appellant is a big organization spanning over a business of more than 20,000 crores and having a lot of branches across the country could not have come to an early decision in this matter. The delay is not intentional and be condoned for the advance of justice. Respondent has filed reply to the application. It is stated in the reply that the appellant''s Counsel had obtained copy of the order on 2.6.2004 hence the plea of bona fide delay is flimsy excuse and unjustifiable in the eye of law. It is also averred in the reply that the Raipur Office was representing the Mumbai Corporate Office and had filed reply, affidavit and documents before the District Forum and was fully aware of the factual matrix of the case. The appellant has failed to explain delay of each day. It is further stated that no organization is big or small in the eye of law and having lots of branches is no ground for condonation of delay. Nowadays all the data regarding date-wise NAV is available on the internet and the appellant is trying to mislead the Commission. There was no sufficient cause for delay in filing the aforesaid appeals and the application deserves to be dismissed. The respondent has also filed his affidavit in support of the reply.

Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

IT is observed that the application under consideration is very cryptic even the relevant dates have not been mentioned. IT is not mentioned as to when copy of the order was received at the Corporate Office. IT is not stated as to how much time was taken for the order to reach the concerned department, how much time was spent by the appellant in collecting the date-wise NAV rate. In our opinion the size of the concerned organization is not at all a relevant fact for consideration of the application for condonation of delay, what is to be considered is whether the appellant has put forth any good and sufficient cause for the delay and has explained each day''s delay. Simply stating that after the order was received at Mumbai Office it took some time to reach the concerned department would not suffice. Once the order has reached the office the concerned staff should be diligent enough to send urgent documents to the concerned departments. In case they have failed to do so the same itself amounts to negligence and cannot be good ground for condonation of delay. It is observed that the statement regarding the Raipur Office not being fully aware of the matter also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that it was the same Sri Rajesh Lokhande, Chief Manager who has filed the appeal and the application for condonation for delay and had filed the reply-cum-affidavit before the District Forum. It is stated in the affidavit-cum-reply to the opposite party filed before the District Forum that the deponent is duly empowered to file the reply. In our opinion once a person is authorized or empowered to defend the case and to file the reply on behalf of some one later it cannot be said that the said person was not fully aware of the factual matrix of the case.

REGARDING the averment of collecting the previous data and the date wise NAV we are of the opinion that in today''s time of developed modern technology all this is just a matter of a few minutes. Further all this exercise was to be done prior to filing of reply before the District Forum and not before filing of appeal. So in our opinion it is also not a good ground for condonation of delay that the appellant''s time was spent in collecting the previous data and the date wise NAV. The affidavit of Shri Rajesh Lokhande, Chief Manager is also very cryptic and it is common affidavit for the appeal, the application for stay and the application for condonation of delay. The avermen regarding the application for condonation of delay as contained in para 4 of the affidavit are reproduced hereinbelow: "That the appellant is appending herewith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay which has aroused in this case and the averments made therein from paras 1 to 4 are true and correct to the best of knowledge and belief."

It is settled law that unless there is good and sufficient cause for the same, the delay cannot be condoned. In our opinion, such generalized statements as made by the appellant in the application and the affidavit cannot be said to put forth any good or sufficient cause. Hence the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. The appellant shall bear their own cost of appeal and also pay that of the respondent, which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal dismissed.