Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President;
Basanti Devi, Member; Mr. Tikka Singh, Member
M/S VIPUL MOTORS PVT. LTD—Appellant
versus
NIRMAL BAHREE—Respondent
First Appeal No. 14 of 1991—Decided on 19.8.1991
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate.
Sufficient cause for condonation of delay can be established based on diligent efforts and compliance with procedural rules.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Consumer Protection - The court allowed the appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay and the unrebutted stand of the appellant was fully satisfied by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Hisar, which was passed ex-parte. The appellant claimed that they were unaware of the order until it was received by them, and they made diligent efforts to secure the correct address for filing the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period, and consequently, the delay was condoned, and the application was allowed. The appeal was allowed to come up for hearing on merits.
Issues: The main issue was the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, and whether the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court was fully satisfied with the unrebutted stand of the appellant, and as per Rule 8 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, the appeals were permitted to be presented by registered post addressed to the Commission.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal for condonation of delay and directed the appeal to come up for hearing on merits.
Mr. S.S. Sandhawalia, President — This is an application for the condonation of delay in preferring the aforesaid appeal.
2. The order of the District Forum, Hisar which is under appeal is dated the 17th of January, 1991. However, the present appeal was filed in the office of the Commission on 13th of March, 1991. The case was listed for arguments on the preliminary issue of limitation.
3. From the contents of the applications made in this connection and the supporting affidavits, it is manifest that the order under appeal was passed against the appellant ex-parte. The said order does not expressly mention that it was pronounced in open Court though it is dated the 17th of January, 1991. It is the case of the petitioners-appellant that the notice for appearing before the District Forum was received by them belatedly on or after the date on which they were directed to appear before the Forum. Consequently without any default on their part the appellant could not represent their case before the Forum and the subsequent request for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings were apparently not given any consideration. It has further been averred that the appellant/petitioners were wholly unaware of the order till the copy thereof was actually received by them through post on the 25th of January, 1991.
4. It is then the appellant/petitioners stand that the appeal against the order was despatched by Registered Post to the Commission on the 25th of February, 1991 alongwith one copy each to the Hon’ble Members of the Commission separately. These appeals were addressed after ascertaining the relevant address from the office of the District Food Controller, Faridabad. Apparently the same was found incomplete & all the three registered letters were received back as unserved for want of a full address. Thereafter the appellant/petitioners made diligent efforts to secure the correct address from the office of the District Food Controller, Faridabad and after securing the same the appeal was promptly got filed in the office of the Commission on the 13th of March, 1991.
5. After a preliminary hearing given to the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioners a notice was issued to the respondent on the 15th of April, 1991. A fresh second notice was also directed to issue on the 7th of May, 1991 for the 3rd of June, 1991. Despite the issue of these two notices no appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondent in a number of subsequent hearings in the case.
6. It bears repetition that the order under appeal has been passed ex-parte and consequently there is no reason to doubt the appellant/petitioners stand and the supporting affidavits, that they were unware of the contents of the order till it was actually received by them on the 25th of January,1991. Rule 8 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules prescribing the procedure for hearing an appeal permits the presentation of appeals by registered post addressed to the Commission. It is appellant/petitioners firm stand that the appeals were despatched within the period of 30 days from the knowledge of the order by Registered Post. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents and no controvertion of the averments in the supporting affidavits to this application, it has to be presumed as correct that the original appeals despatched by post were received back due to an incomplete address. Thereafter diligent efforts were made to get the correct address and the present appeal was presented before the Commission with reasonable expedition. In view of the unrebutted stand of the appellant/petitioners we are fully satisfied that sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period has been made out and consequently the delay therein is condoned and the application is hereby allowed.
7. The appeal will now come up for hearing on merits. As the matter of abundant caution a fresh notice to the respondent may issue in this regard.
Appeal allowed.
__
