AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal, challenging the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, order dated 10.07.2018 has been filed with a delay of 578 days, as per computation made by the Registry of the Commission. I.A. No.3481 of 2020 dated 1.3.2020, has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. In this application, delay has been shown as 549 days.
This matter was heard on 18.09.2020 when the following order was passed:
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant. She explained the case very briefly and submitted that an application for stay as well as condonation of delay of 578 days have been filed. She argued that the delay had been explained properly and therefore may be allowed.
Issue notice of the appeal along with I.A. No.3480 of 2020, an application for stay and I.A. No.3481 of 2020, an application for condonation of delay to the respondent, returnable on 30.09.2020."
In the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that though the order of the State Commission was passed on 10.07.2018, the same was received by the appellant only on 13.09.2018. It has been further stated that in this period, the Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the appellant, a Senior Citizen, was indisposed. Thereafter, another A.R. was appointed vide Board Resolution dated 22.10.2018. By way of explanation for delay, it has been submitted that in the period, 13.09.2018 to 22.10.2018, inadvertently, information about this case was not handed over to the new A.R.. It has been further stated that the new A.R. then submitted his resignation on 26.11.2019 and left the company on 31.12.2019. Still further, after resignation of the new A.R., another A.R. was appointed on 24.09.2019. It has not been explained in the application as to how the 3rd A.R. was appointed on 24.9.2019 while the earlier A.R. was still in employ!!
Thereafter, it has been stated, that the new A.R. took stock and only then came to know on 19.12.2019 about the present matter and informed the office regarding the same on 20.12.2019. However, the office of the counsel for the appellant was closed from 24.12.2019 till 05.01.2020. After opening of office, the present appeal was drafted and sent to the present A.R. for approval on 10.01.2020. This was sent back to the counsel on 24.01.2020. Thereafter, the appeal was finalized and some more time was taken for obtaining the signature of the A.R. Consequently, the present appeal was filed on 09.03.2020. In this way, delay of 578/549 days has been sought to be explained.
A plain reading of the above would reveal that no mention has been made of the fact that counsel for the OP was present when the impugned order was passed on 10.07.2018. Clearly, therefore, the appellant was aware, or should have been aware, of the impugned order. If he was not, for whatever reason, the consequences of default cannot be borne by others, particularly the complainant who has a lawful order of the State Commission creating valuable rights in his favour.
The explanation offered for delay, in terms of A.R. changing hands, inadvertently failing to hand over this present appeal, A.R. resigning, a new A.R. joining and so on cannot be said to be a proper explanation at all for the delay. It is clear that the appellant/OP has, after being fully aware of the order of the State Commission, chosen to ignore its implementation and has misused the process of law to delay implementation. Law of limitation as laid down and as elaborated by the Hon'ble Apex Court on several occasions has a serious intent and cannot be flouted in the manner sought to be explained in the I.A..
Accordingly, I.A. No.3481 of 2020, an application for condonation of delay is dismissed forthwith. Consequently, F.A. No.367 of 2020 stands dismissed.