ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Misc. Application No.11 of 2025 In/and First Appeal No.01 of 2025 Date of Institution : 09.01.2025 Date of Reserve : 17.04.2025 Date of Decision : 08.05.2025

1. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway Hospital Ferozepur Punjab through General Manager.

2. Divisional Railway Manager Finance (P) Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt., Punjab through its Authorized Agents.

3. The Chief Medical Director, Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi.

4. Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway (Health Unit) B-

Block Amritsar through its Authorized Agents.

Appellant No.1 to 4 through Dr.Ranjana Sehgal Northern Railway Hospital, Ferozepur Punjab.

…..Appellants/Opposite parties Versus Manmohan Singh S/o S.Sardul Singh aged 67, resident of House No.242, Gali No.1, Shakti Nagar, Khandwala Opposite Punjab & Sind Bank Near Jagdev Gas Agency Chheharta, Amritsar 143108 Punjab, Mobile No.83602-26785 ….Respondent/complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 26.09.2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. Quorum:-

Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Ms.Simarjot Kaur, Member Present:-

For the appellants : Dr.Anju Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Manmohan Singh, In person HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite parties –Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway Hospital, against the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed by passing the following order:

“9. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and the opposite parties are directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. As the complainant has been harassed in the hands of the opposite parties, as the opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10000/- as well as litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.”

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

M.A. No.11 of 2025 (Delay)

2. This order will dispose of the application filed with F.A. No.01 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 442 days in filing of the appeal.

3. This application is filed by the appellants/opposite parties on the ground that due to procedural delay the delay of 442 days occurred in filing the appeal. It is further submitted that after filing of the appeal, notice was issued on the delay application and when it was listed for 01.10.2024, the counsel for the appellant withdraw the appeal and liberty was granted to file the petition and then the appeal was drafted again and sent the department for signing the appeal along with affidavits. Further, the delay occurred as confonet and e-Dakil was not working from 15.12.2024 to 05.01.2025. In this manner a delay of 442 days delay in filing the appeal occurred. The appellants prayed to condone the delay.

4. Reply to the application was filed by the respondent/complainant wherein it is submitted that earlier the appellants/opposite parties could not explain the delay of 183 days, therefore, the application was withdrawn on 07.11.2024 with a liberty to file a fresh appeal. Now again the appellants filed a fresh appeal along with the application for condoning the delay of 442 days on the lame and useless grounds without explaining the each and every date of delay. The application filed by the appellants/ opposite parties is not maintainable as no sufficient cause has been explained to condone the same and the same may be rejected. The appellants have not explained any sufficient cause for condoning such a huge delay. The cause of action had ar