ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Misc. Application No.567 of 2022 In/and First Appeal No.304 of 2022 Date of institution : 20.04.2022 Date of Decision : 25.04.2022 Sher Singh (since deceased) S/o Balbir Singh R/o Village Daska Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, through his Father Balvir Singh S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o Village Daska Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

….Appellant-complainant Versus

1. The Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Lal-G.M.

Chowk, Park Road. Mana.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regd. & Head Office, New India Assurance Bldg. 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbail.

…..Respondents/opposite parties Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 3074 in filing the appeal.

IN/AND First Appeal against the order dated 24.09.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now Commission), Mansa.

Quorum:-

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For applicant/appellant : Sh. Kanav Bansal, Advocate RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, PRESIDING MEMBER :

M.A. No. 567 of 2022 (Delay)

This application has been filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 3074 days in filing the appeal, as the appeal is barred by delay. The appellant has averred in this application that after the order passed by District Commission, Mansa, the applicant/appellant submitted the bills/quotation with respondent No.1, who was to decide the same within a period of 15 days, but nothing was done. Thereafter son of the applicant/applicant died on 05.01.2019. The appellant visited the office of respondents number of times, but nothing was done to settle the claim. And due to above said reasons, the delay of 3074 days has occurred in filing the appeal, which is not willful and is due to unavoidable circumstances. Finally prayed to condone the delay

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay reveals that it is a case of inaction of appellant and we are not impressed with this ground, as projected by the appellant to seek condonation of inordinate delay of 3074 days in filling this appeal on the above said premise. Law does not come to the aid of non-vigilant persons. A legal right has already vested in OPs/respondents by efflux of period of limitation, which can be taken away on proof of sufficient ground only. No sufficient ground has been established by appellant to seek the condonation of inordinate delay of 3074 days. Each day's delay is required to be explained by the appellant before the delay can be condoned and there is nothing on the record to establish it. Special period of limitation has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act for filing the appeal. The peace of the people would be disturbed, in case no limitation is prescribed for any particular act under law, as it would lead to endless litigation between the parties, over stale matters.

3. The matter has been settled by Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in Consumer Protection Reporter in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein it was held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted for achieving a specific object. The object is the expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes. The very purpose of the Act will be defeated, in case, Court was to entertain highly belated petitions against the order of the Consumer Fora. Stale matters cannot be allowed to be agitated again and again. Law of limitation operates somewhat rigorously. We find that a specified period for filing the appeal has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act and the very purpose of this special Act would be defeated by condoning stale matters.

4. There is no sufficient ground to condone unexplained 3074 days inordinate delay in this case, because a legal right has already vested in the respondent of this appeal by efflux of time.

5. We do not find any merit in the application of condonation of de