Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Sunita Devi alias Geeta and Ors. —Appellants
versus
M/s. Jagmohan Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.271 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 13/07/2016 in Complaint No. 170/2016 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 10.5.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Ms. Shivambikak Sinha, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Condonation of delay is not a matter of right. —Para 8
2. Burden is put upon the applicant to show sufficient cause for the delay.—Para 9
3. Party who has not acted diligently or remain inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay.—Para 10
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section19 – Car accident – Husband and daughter died while complainant suffered multiple injuries – Consumer complaint dismissed by State Commission as complainants have to go to Motor Accident Claim Tribunal – Appeal against – Delay therein of delay of 2 years 6 months and 3 days – Condonation of – Having pursued the matters in both the State Commission and the MACT – Appellants appear to have not acted diligently and remained inactive for fairly a long time – Burden is put upon the applicant to show sufficient cause for the delay – Party who has not acted diligently or remain inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay – Held that, we find no sufficient ground to condone the delay. [Paras 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
C. Viswanath, Member—The present Appeal is filed by the Appellants under Section19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint No. 170/2016 dated 13.07.2016.
2. In the Complaint case, the Complainants stated that Mr. Sanjesh (since deceased) purchased a car bearing chassis No. 503487 and engine No. 5072733 from Respondent No. 1 who was the authorised dealer of the car. On 18.01.2015 at about 4 PM the car met with an accident within Bagar, Rajasthan Police Station limits. An FIR was lodged for the offence against driver of the truck. In the accident Mr. Sanjesh and his minor daughter Nancy expired and Appellant No. 1 Sunita suffered multiple injuries. Death and injuries occurred because the Air Bag did not open due to manufacturing defect. The legal heirs of Mr. Sanjesh filed consumer complaint case for compensation to the tune of Rs.95 lakh as there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties, but in vain. The Appellants filed Consumer Complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission ordered as follows:—
“The Present case is not covered by Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘Act’) a person can ask for compensation qua the said article. OP No. 3 can indemnify insured qua damage to property and third party interest, which is clear from the policy placed on the file. For the purpose of compensation due to death, OP No. 3 is not liable and complainants have to go to MACT as discussed above. Liability of OP No. 3 qua this dispute cannot be adjudicated upon before this Commission and it is not necessary party. So, the complaint is dismissed in limine as being not maintainable.”
3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Appellant filed the present Appeal before this Commission.
4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and also carefully perused the record.
5. IA No. 2865/2018 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal.In the application, condonation is requested for a delay of 2 years 6 months and 3 days in filing the Appeal on account of time lost being defrauded and misled by a series of counsels engaged by the Appellants.No other evidence has been provided nor any sufficient cause given for filing the appeal with an inordinate delay of more than 2 ½ years by the Appellants.
6. The Appellants are not novices to litigation.They have filed the consumer complaint before the State Commission and argued the matter.During the course of arguments before the State Commission, it was admitted that Petition for compensation had already been filed before the MACT.Having pursued the matters in both the State Commission and the MACT, we are unable to appreciate, for want of any evidence in the matter as to how each and every Advocate they engaged defrauded them, which ended in delay of more than 2 ½ years in filing the present Appeal.
7. The Appellants appear to have not acted diligently and remained inactive for fairly a long time.The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the settled legal proposition of law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party.The Appellants have not been able to give adequate and sufficient reason which prevented them to approach this Commission within the limitation.
8. It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons for not being able to come to the Court / Commissions within the stipulated period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under:—
“It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitl
