IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of 999 days in filing the appeal held cannot be condoned.

ORDER (ORAL)

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Appellant (hereinafter called as “the Appellant”) against the order dated 08.05.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.625 of 2016, whereby the Complaint of the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter called as “the Complainant”) was allowed.

2. The present First Appeal has been filed after a delay of about 999 days i.e. almost three years. I.A. No.3176/2020 seeking condonation of delay has been moved by the Appellant. Arguments on this application are being heard.

I.A. No.3176/2020 (condonation of delay)

3. In the present application for condonation of delay the only ground is that the address of the Company in which the Appellant was once a time a Director, was changed and therefore the copy of the final order could not be served on the Appellant and he was not aware of the passing of the order of the State Commission dated 08.05.2017. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was served of this order only on 25.01.2020, the date on which he was arrested in the Execution Petition filed by the Respondents. Immediately, thereafter, he filed the present appeal on 02.03.2020. It is argued that the delay was not intentional but due to these circumstances.

4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel. Learned counsel, on enquiry, has admitted that the Appellant had been a party to the Complaint No.625/2016 filed before the State Commission and he was duly served of the complaint and he had authorised the Company to represent him and contest the complaint on his behalf. He has also admitted that the Company has throughout participated in the trial and the order of the State Commission is on merit, after hearing both the parties. He also admits that even though he was aware that the address of the company had changed during the trial before the State Commission yet by mistake he could not inform the State Commission of the change of the address, as on his behalf the Company was fighting his case. He has not disputed that the Company stood served of the impugned order and he has no information that the Company has filed any appeal or not. As contented in the application, the office address of his Company wherein he was a director is SCO No.196-197, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, which he alleges, have been vacated by the Company, in pursuance of the directions given by the Rent Controller, vide its order dated 21.10.2013 and this fact finds mentioned in the order dated 08.05.2017. These facts clearly shows that the Company who had been contesting the matter on its behalf and on behalf of the Appellant, was also aware that the premises on which they were originally situated had been vacated and also brought this fact to the notice of the State Commission. Even after change of the address as Company as which the appellant was served of the complaint, changed the address, there is no dispute that the Company was duly served of the impugned order. It is not the contention of the appellant that he had provided his private address to the State Commission, and therefore the State Commission was under obligation to send him the free copy of its order at that address. This plea of the Appellant, therefore, has no merit. If the Company had changed the address, who had been authorised by him to contest his case, and had been contesting the matter and where there is no plea that company was not served of the impugned order, it cannot be said that the appellant was not served of the impugned order. If the Company is served, who was contesting on his behalf, he was also served. Even otherwise, he was a party of the complaint pending before the State Commission, it was his duty to be vigilant of the ongoing matter against him. If he was sleep