VIJAY MALHOTRA vs Maruti Udyog Ltd.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 30.1.2001, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 247/98 entitled Shri Vijay Malhotra v. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant Shri Vijay Malhotra had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring that he had purchased a Maruti Zen Car, bearing No. DL 8C-C 5097, manufactured by respondent No. 1, from respondent No. 2 for Rs. 3,56,661.19 paise on 17.5.1997. THE grievance of the appellant in the complaint, in nutshell, was that the car, so purchased by him, was a defective piece and, therefore, in the complaint, filed by him, he had claimed replacement of the defective car or in the alternative refund of the price of the car together with reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in the repair of the car, amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. THE appellant had also claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondents and the respondents in their reply/written version while denying the allegations stated that the appellant was not entitled to any replacement of the vehicle nor the cost of the same as the vehicle was not defective and as when the appellant lodged a complaint about the vehicle, the same was attended to with due promptitude.

The appellant filed rejoinder to the written version controverting the plea taken by the respondents in their written version and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions before the learned District Forum.

THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant is not entitled to the replacement of the car in question. However, the learned District Forum has directed the respondents to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of expenses incurred by the appellant in having the car in question repaired. THE District Forum has also awarded cost of litigation, amounting to Rs. 1,500/- to be paid by the respondents to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, a person, aggrieved by an order, made by the District Forum, can prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. However, proviso to Section 15 of the Act provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the abovesaid period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the same within the abovesaid period. The words ''sufficient cause'', occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ''sufficient cause'' though deserves to receive a liberal interpretation, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bonafide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though, no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ''sufficient cause'' in a given case, yet, again, as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ''sufficient cause''. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. Admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days, because the order being impugned in the present proceedings was passed by the learned District Forum on 30.1.2000 and the present appeal has been filed by the appellant in this Commission on 9.3.2001. No application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, has been filed on behalf of the appellant and, therefore, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is decidedly barred by limitation in the given facts. The present appeal, as already stated, besides being barred by limitation is also devoid of substance on merits because it has been held by the learned District Forum in the impugned order that the car had been used extensively by the appellant and in a duration of seven months had run 13,298 kms. i.e. about 2,000 kms. per month. The correctness of the above fact is not disputed even before us by the appellant. In the presence of the above fact, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings in our opinion is a well-reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties including the appellant and, therefore, calls for no interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.