A K SINGH vs Megma Measing And Finance Company Limited

FIRST Appeal No. 1018/2014 is directed against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, whereby a complaint filed by the complainant/appellant was dismissed on merits. First Appeal No. 1019/2014 is directed against the order passed on the same date in another complaint dismissing the complaint filed by this very complainant/appellant.

THE appeals have been filed on 23.09.2014. The impugned order was received by the complainant/appellant on 19.03.2012. There is delay of 888 days i.e. about 2x 1/2 years in filing the appeals. The appellant has, therefore, filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The said applications to the extent they seek to explain the delay reads as under: - i. The Appellant has the liability of 9 family members consisting of 6 daughters, wife and an old ailing mother. It is submitted that the Appellant is sole bread earner for his family and due to the illegal acts of Respondent No. 1, the Appellant and the entire family of the Appellant are at the verge of starvation.

ii. That the Applicant is poor person and without any job since the date the Respondent No. 1 took the forcible possession of the machine of the Appellant.

iii. The Respondent No. 1 cheated and defrauded the Applicant for lakhs of rupees by illegally seizing the machines purchased by the Applicant.

iv. The act of cheating and fraud committed by the Judgment Debtor has totally ruined the life of the Appellant herein.

v. That Applicant is a poor person and Applicant is only an earning member of the family.

vi. The business of Appellant got totally frustrated and destroyed and he lost everything financially.

vii. That the aforesaid jolt in the life the Appellant got totally depressed and he could not be able to understand what to do and what not to do in life.

viii. That the applicant most respectfully submits that due the illegal acts of Respondent No. 1, the Appellant became hand to mouth and he could not able to feed his family members properly and in such circumstances it was not possible for him to approach this Hon''ble Court timely."

IN our view, the circumstances stated above do not at all explain the delay of almost 2x 1/2 years in filing these appeals. No court fee is payable on the appeals filed with this Commission. Therefore, the alleged poverty of the appellant could not have come in the way of his filing the appeals. It is stated in the application that the appellant was totally frustrated and destroyed on account of the cheating committed to him by the respondent Company. This, however, does not explain the delay in filing the appeals since it was only after the alleged cheating that the appellants approached the concerned State Commission by way of a complaint in November, 2008. We fail to appreciate how the alleged frustration of the appellant/complainant on account of the alleged misdeeds of the respondent could have come in the way of his filing the appeals when he had already approached the State Commission by way of a complaint and that too through Advocate, way back in November, 2008. It is alleged in the application that last year the house of the appellant/complainant in his native place got damaged. Neither the date of the alleged damage to the house has been given in the application nor has any supporting material been annexed to the application. In any case, even if we accept the aforesaid allegation on its face value, that does not explain the delay prior to the alleged damage last year. What is important in this regard is that the impugned order came to be passed in March, 2012, whereas the appeals have been filed in September, 2014. Therefore, if the alleged damage to the house of the appellant/complainant took place in the year 2013, that would not explain the delay, between the alleged destruction and the date on which the copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant.

FROM whatever angle, we may take and despite having considered the matter compassionately and liberally, considering that the appellant before us is a complainant, we are not able to persuade ourselves to condone the delay of almost 2x 1/2 years in filing these appeals. The applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation.