Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President &
Mr. C.P. Budhiraja, Member
SURINDER SINGH—Appellant
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.—Respondent
Misc. Application No. 1884 of 2002 in Appeal No. 1665 of 2002—Decided on 11.3.2003
`Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. C.L. Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mrs. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate.
Insufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and the need for specific and valid reasons to justify condonation of delay.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Appeal Filing - The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing insufficient grounds and sheer carelessness of the applicant. The delay of 7 days was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed as belated.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought condonation of a 7-day delay in filing an appeal against an order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, citing over-occupation in official duties as the reason for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the applicant's grounds for condonation of delay to be insufficient, stating that the reasons provided were vague and lacked specific details. The court also noted the sheer carelessness of the applicant and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, imposing costs on the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that over-occupation in official duties, without specific details and dates, could not be considered a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The court also emphasized the need for specific and valid reasons for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and imposed costs on the applicant, consequently dismissing the appeal as belated.
Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It is an application for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 18.10.2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”).
2. Notice in this misc. application was given to the respondent, who has filed the reply to the same.
3. Counsel for the appellant-applicant (hereinafter called the “applicant”) has reiterated the same facts for condoning the delay which have been taken in ground No. 2 of the application. Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as N. Balakrishan v. M. Krishnamurthy, =1999 (1) PLR 462.
4. We have heard Counsel for the parties. The ground taken by the applicant for condonation of delay in Para 2 of the application, and canvassed before us by his Counsel, is reproduced as under :
“That there is 7 days’ delay in filing the said appeal which has occurred due to unavoidable reasons because of the over-occupation of the appellant/complainant in the affairs of the State as he is a highly placed officer as Chief Engineer in the P.W.D. (B&R) and is required to attend to his duties even on holidays and after office hours. This delay has occurred because the appellant/complainant could not find time to collect the necessary documents and consult his Counsel.”
5. It has not been stated as to how and in what manner the applicant was pre-occupied in the affairs of the State. Simply because he is a Chief Engineer and was a busy person and could not attend to his case could not be taken as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. No specific dates have been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay stating as to when the intimation was received by the applicant and when he was busy, when he could not collect the copy of the order of the District Forum and other relevant documents. No break-up has been given in the application as to when and where he was busy and, thus, he could not attend to his case. He has simply stated in this application that the delay had occurred because he could not find time to collect the necessary documents and consult his Counsel. It is not stated as to when for the first time he had received the certified copy of the impugned order and the relevant papers and under what circumstances he was debarred from taking possession of the necessary documents and to consult his Counsel. It is a highly vague application. The authority of the Supreme Court cited by the Counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the facts of this case. The delay is due to sheer carelessness of the applicant.
6. In these circumstances, we do not find any sufficient ground to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. In this regard, reference may also be made to an order of this Commission passed in Misc. Application No. 980 of 1999 in Appeal No. 1199 of 1999, Punjab School Education Board & Ors. v. Harpal Singh decided on 9.2.2000. This application for condonation of delay is, thus, dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 500/-.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as belated.
Misc. Application dismissed.
_
