AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 04.10.2016, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant against the respondents was dismissed on merits.
Since there is delay of more than three years in intuition of appeal an application seeking condonation of the said delay has also been filed.
The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal to the extend it is relevant reads as under:
'2. That the learned Commission, Punjab passed the impugned order dated 04.10.2016 which was never received by the appellant. The appellant was not aware about passing of any order by the learned Commission nor nay confirmation was given by the counsel to the applicant/appellant and as such the applicant/ appellant was not aware of the developments as the applicant/ appellant has appraised the counsel to take appropriate legal action on the outcome of the complaint but to utter surprise of the complainant/appellant no action was taken nor any copy was supplied and immediately having known that no action has been taken. Certified copies were applied and taken from the Hon'ble Commission and the present appeal is being filed as there are substantial legal matter in favour of the applicant/appellant.'
It would thus be seen the only plea taken complainant/ appellant is that it was not aware of the impugned order nor did its counsel inform it about the said order.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that the complainant/ appellant was represented by a counsel and so were the respondents. The consumer complaint was dismissed by way of a detailed order after considering the arguments advanced before the State Commission. The arguments were heard on 21.06.2019 as is noted para 18 of the order. The judgement by the State Commission kept to the delivered within a few days thereafter on 04.10.2016.
It would be difficult to believe that neither the complainant/ appellant nor its counsel made any effort even to ascertain the order passed in the consumer complaint for as much as more than three years. It was the duty of the counsel engaged by the complainant/ appellant to appear before the State Commission when the matter would have been shown its cause list for pronouncement of order dated 04.10.2016. Even if the counsel had not seen the cause list or he was not able to appear on that date, he ought to have enquired about the fate of the consumer complaint from the Registry of the State Commission. In any case nothing prevented the counsel from inspecting the record of the consumer complaint to find out what order if any had been passed in the consumer complaint after arguments were concluded on 21.09.2016.
It was also the duty of the complainant to remain in touch with its advocate and follow up the consumer complaint filed on its behalf. It is difficult to accept that the complainant/appellant did not have any interaction with its counsel for more than three years nor did the complainant/appellant make an effort to find out the fate of the consumer complaint through any other source. If the complainant/appellant did not bother even to interact with his counsel after filing the consumer complaint it would be an act of gross negligence on his part in pursuing the consumer complaint filed by him.
Though, it is alleged that no copy of the impugned order was received by the complainant/appellant it would be difficult to accept the said statement since as per the practice of a consumer forum including a State Commission copies of the impugned orders are sent to the concerned party in due course.
From whatever angle I may look at it, I find absolutely no justification for condonation of delay in more than three years in filing this appeal. Though the attempt of every court/ forum should be to decide a matter on merits, on such an abnormal delay cannot be condoned without a justification having been shown for it. The application seeking condonation of said delay, therefore, dismissed.
As a result, the appeal is dismissed as barred by the limitation.