IMPORTANT POINT
Law of limitation has to be honoured by all concerned.

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President —The complainant/respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant/OP, MDR Service Centre and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., which are OP Nos. 2 and 3, Service Centre and the Manufacturing Company respectively of the Samsung Mobile Phone alleging that the mobile phone purchased by him for Rs. 4,830 from OP No.1 Subhiksha Mobile, dealer of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., OP No.3, started malfunctioning from 7.9.2008 the day it was purchased and the defects could not be removed and he made many visits to the OP No.2 Service Centre for its repairs. Yet the set remained faulty, he therefore, prayed that OPs be directed to refund the cost of the set purchased and also compensation of Rs. fifty thousand. The complaint was contested by OP Nos. 2 and 3 and the District Consumer Forum ordered OP No.3 to refund the amount of purchase of mobile of Rs. 4,830 paid by the complainant along with compensation of Rs. three thousand and costs of litigation Rs. two thousand.

2. That is what brings the appellant in appeal here.

3. The appeal has been filed beyond thirty days of prescribed limitation and for its condonation, the appellant has filed delay condonation application.

4. We have heard Mr. Lakmi Chand, Counsel for the appellant present on delay condonation application.

5. The reason given for the delay in the application can be quoted below for easy understanding:

“The appellant No.1 received the certified copy of order on 28th December, 2009 thereafter the appellant sought legal opinion and forwarded the file to their Head Office for necessary approval for filing an appeal before this Hon’ble Commission. However, in the meantime registered office (Head Office) of the appellant No.1 shifted from IFCI Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi to Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon and on account thereof the file of the captioned case was misplaced. However, the file was traced out on. 16th February, 2010, thereafter the appellants on 18th February, 2010 got the FDR prepared and instructed the present Counsel to file the appeal. The Counsel for the appellants immediately drafted the appeal for being filed before this Hon’ble Commission as such there is delay of 30 days. The delay in filing the present appeal is on account of the reason stated herein, it is neither deliberate nor intentional.”

6. The main reason given for the delay as enumerated above is that file got misplaced in the Office of the appellant Company No.1 due to shifting cannot be deemed to be a sufficient tenable reason for condonation of delay. If delay is to be condoned on such flimsy ground, everybody would come and say that his papers got misplaced and delay be condoned. If a specific time is provided by the law for a specific purpose the court must be extremely reluctant to condone the delay, and there should be an insistence for particular act being done within the prescribed time. Granting extension of time on such ground, would be placing premium on lethargy and disregard for law.

7. Other reason which entails rejection of the application is that well established law for condonation of delay that everyday’s delay has to be explained. The appellant has not disclosed that when he sent the file for legal opinion when it was obtained and when the file sent for the Head Office and when the Head Office was shifted to Vipul Tech Square.

8. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. In consequence whereof, the appeal being time-barred is also dismissed.

9. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, be returned to the appellant after completion of due formalities.

10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Appeal dismissed—Time barred.

*******