ANAND PRAKASH vs A.M. JOHRI

SINCE the above mentioned 3 appeals are directed against a common order dated 2.3.2000, passed by District Forum-VII (Sheikh Sarai), in Complaint Case No. 426/99 - entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma & Anr., Complaint Case No. 427/1999 - entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma & Anr., and Complaint Case No. 323/1999 - entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma & Anr., the same are being disposed of by this common order.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned three appeals, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant Shri Anand Prakash had filed three separate complaints before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), alleging that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1.40 lacs, by way of loan, with Shri B.B. Sharma, Chairman, Hoffland Finance Limited, who gave him 100 Equity Shares of Indian Rayon Industries Limited; 100 Shares of India Petro-Chemicals Corporation Limited; and 100 Shares of Reliance Industries Limited, as a security against the abovesaid loan amount, advanced to Hoffland Finance Ltd. It was alleged in the complaint that on coming to know that Hoffland Finance Ltd., of which Shri B.B. Sharma was the Chairman, was closing down, the appellant forwarded the shares for transfer in his own name but the shares were returned by the concerned Companies with the report that the transferor''s signatures did not match with the specimen signatures. THEreupon the appellant approached Shri Virender Pal Rastogi, Shri Rajinder Pal and Shri A.M. Johri for execution of fresh transfer deeds which were not executed despite repeated requests. THE learned District Forum, vide impugned order has held that no case under the Act is made out by the complainant and no relief under the provisions of the Act can be given to the complainant. On the above ground the learned District Forum has dismissed all the three complaints filed by the appellant before the District Forum. However, the District Forum, while dismissing the complaints, has given the liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate Forum for relief, as he may be advised. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the abovementioned 3 appeals before this Commission, under Section 15 of the Act.

We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeals and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings, was passed by the learned District Forum on 2.3.2000. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, the present appeals should have been filed within a period of thirty days of the order. However, proviso to above section provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the abovesaid period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within the above-said period. The words ''sufficient cause'', occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ''sufficient cause'', though deserves to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ''sufficient cause'' in a given case, yet, again as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ''sufficient cause''. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied.

ADMITTEDLY, the present appeals have not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of thirty days. The same have been filed on 19.8.2000, i.e. much after the prescribed period for filing the appeals. Neither any application, seeking condonation of delay, in filing the present appeals, has been filed nor the appellant has shown any cause for not filing the same in time, in the body of the appeals and, therefore, the present appeals, filed by the appellant, are barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed on the above ground alone. The present appeals, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation are also devoid of substance on merits. The transaction in question is purely a commercial transaction. The appellant, in the given facts, is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the dispute being raised is not a consumer dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. The complaints filed by the appellant before the District Forum, therefore, were not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. The learned District Forum, in our opinion, in the gives facts, was fully justified in rejecting the complaints filed by the appellant, giving him the liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances, as he may be advised.

FOR the above reasons, the present appeals, filed by the appellant, viewed from all angles, are devoid of substance. The same merit dismissal. Accordingly, the same are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed in limine.