STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                      First Appeal No.659 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 24.07.2019

                                                        Date of Final Hearing: 27.10.2022

Date of pronouncement: 16.01.2023

IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd) B-148, 11^th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001.

Versus

1.      Ltd Co. (Retd.) Mandeep Singh Dhillon

2.      Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Dhillon, R/o # 462, Sector-2, Panchkula, Haryana.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

Present:-    None for the appellant.

                   Ltd. Col. Retd. Mandeep Singh Dhillon-respondent in person.

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.659 of 2019 has been filed against the impugned order dated 25.02.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.35 of 2018, which was allowed.

2.      There is a total delay of 116 days in filing of the appeal and appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay wherein,  it is alleged that  appellant did not receive the certified copy of order dated 25.02.2019. The summons in execution proceedings were received on 10.07.2019  in New Delhi and thereafter the same was sent to Chandigarh office. The counsel for the appellant applied for the order on 19.07.2019  and got the certified copy on 22.07.2019. The delay occurred in filing the present appeal was not intentional but due to the fact that certified copy was never received by the appellant. Thus, delay of 116 days in filing  of the present appeal be condoned.

3.      Arguments Heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant did not receive the certified copy of impugned order dated 25.02.2019. They learnt about the same only when the summons in execution proceedings were received on 10.07.2019  in New Delhi and thereafter the same was sent to Chandigarh office. The counsel for the appellant applied for the order on 19.07.2019  and got the certified copy on 22.07.2019. Due to the above said reasons, the appeal could not be filed, so the delay may be condoned. 

5.      This argument is not available.  A period of 45 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 45 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

6.                      The inordinate delay of 116 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a de