Back
2005 (1) CPR 5
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
V.K. Agarwal, President; Smt. Veena Misra and R.S Awasthi, Members
Raipur Municipal Corporation—Appellant
versus
Sanjay Gurvekar—Respondent
Appeal No. 598/03 and 599/03, 600/03
Decided on 8-9-2004
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. J.P. Banerjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M.K. Tiwari, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where a bare perusal of the application and affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeals do not appear to be bonafide, the same are liable to be rejected.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 proviso — Application for condonation of delay for appeals filed on 30-1-2002 of orders passed on 31-5-2001 beyond limitation of 30 days — Copy of order received by counsel of appellant on 2-6-2001 wrongly stated in affidavit to have been served in the 2nd week of June, 2001 — Casual statement of lot of time spent in obtaining opinions of various counsels — Frequent change in CEO in the office alleged, not germane for delay — Affidavit and application found non-bonafide — Result — Liable to be dismissed — 1996(3) SCC 132 not of any help — Appeal dismissed as time barred.(Para 13)
Held: It is settled law that the application for condonation of delay can-not be allowed unless it demonstrates that there is good and sufficient cause for the delay. Delay of each day is to be explained. In our opinion, the appellant has only made generalized statements in both the application and the affidavit and has also made statements that appear to be far from being true. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that appellant has utterly failed to putforth any just and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. During the course of argument learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on Govt. of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Ors. 1996 (3) Supreme Court Cases 132. In our opinion the appellant cannot take benefit of the aforesaid case as even on a bare perusal of the applica-tion the same does not appear to be bonafide.(Para 13)
Result: Appeal dismissed as barred by time.
Smt. Veena Misra, Member — These appeals, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against the orders by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (herein after called the ‘District Forum' for short) in complaints as per details given below:-
S.No. Order dated. Complaint No. Appeal No.
1. 31-5-2001 396/1999 598/2003
2. 31-5-2001 396/1999 599/2003
3. 31-5-2001 396/1999 600/2003
2. Since these appeals were filed after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal, the appellants have also filed applications for condonation of delay together with affidavit of Shri Tejpal Singh, Sub. Engineer and OIC (Flats) of the appellant organization. Since the applications as well as affidavits are identical in all the appeals, they are being disposed off by this common order.
3. Mainly three reasons for delay in filing the appeal have been stated in the application:-
(i) Appellant was served with the copy of the order in the second week of June, 2001.
(ii) A lot of time spent in obtaining opinion of various counsel and contrary opinion was given by them.
(iii) Another reason for delay as stated in the application was frequent change of CEO in the office of the appellant.
4. Respondent did not file written reply to the application but the learned counsel vehemently opposed the appli-cation orally.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and perused the record.
6. Learned council for the appe-llant submitted that reasons for delay as mentioned in the application are bona-fide and there was good and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal and prayed that in view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice.
7. Learned counsel for the respon-dent contended that the counsel for the appellant had taken copy of the order from the office of the District Forum and has falsely alleged in the application that the copy was delivered to the appellant in the second week of June, 2001. He further contended that time spent in obtaining opinion of various counsel can not be a good and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal and prayed that the application be dismissed.
8. It is observed that it is stated in the application that copy of the order was delivered to the appellant in the second week of June, 2001. On perusal of the record of the District Forum it appears that the copy of the order dated
31.5.2001 was received by the counsel for the appellant on 2.6.2001. Hence the statement as made in the application in this regard appears to be far from being true.
9. We have further observed that the application has been drafted in a very casual manner. Even the name of the concerned officer referred to in para 2 & 3 of the application has not been mentioned. The appellant has mentioned the name of only one counsel Shri A.M. Thakur instead of mentioning the name of various counsel whose opinion was allegedly sought. The appellant has also failed to mention relevant dates when such opinion was sought and when the same was tendered. We are of the opinion that simple mention that the opinion was sought from various counsel and delay was caused due to conflicting opinion of the said counsel, without any details as to the names and dates is neither good nor sufficient ground to condone the delay.
10. So far as the reason of frequent change of CEO in the office of the appe-llant is concerned, we have noticed a number of discrepancies in the appli-cation in this regard. It is apparent on record that this appeal has been filed on 30.1.2002. However, the appellant has stated in para 6 of the application that another cause for delay is frequent change of CEO in the office of the appellant. It is observed that in para 6 of the application it is stated “Earlier one Mr. P.R. Uraon was incharge of the affairs but before he could take steps for filing the appeal, he was transferred and relieved on 29.1.2002 and on the same date Shri D.S.
