SUNITA vs A.S. LALLY AND ASSOCIATES

THE complainant has filed this appeal on 1.7.2004 against impugned judgment and order dated 14.8.2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 231 of 2000 vide which the complaint was dismissed.

THE appeal has been filed after a considerable delay of more than one and-a-half years. THE sole ground on which the delay has been sought to be condoned is that the appellant did not received the copy of the order sent by the District Forum after the complaint was decided on 14.8.2002, which was incidentally the date of hearing the arguments as well. THE learned Counsel for the appellant moved an application on 21.5.2004 for supply of certified copy of the order, which was issued on 25.5.2004. THE appeal was, however, filed on 1.7.2004. In para 5 of the application, it has been mentioned that no intimation regarding the order was sent either to the appellant or to her Counsel nor any copy of the order was sent to any one of them. In para 8, it has been mentioned that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional but due to the reasons mentioned above. An affidavit has been filed by the appellant in support of the application seeking condonation of delay wherein it has been deposed in para 4 that the applicant approached her Counsel to enquire from him about the fate of the complaint filed on her behalf and when enquired from the record of the Forum, he came to know that the case was decided on 14.8.2002 itself. The date on which the appellant approached her Counsel to enquire has not been given in para 4 of the affidavit. The date when the Counsel enquired from the District Forum has also not been disclosed. Though it was not pleaded in the application nor deposed to in the affidavit, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was having matrimonial dispute with her husband and it might be that the certified copy of the order sent by the District Forum have reached the husband of the appellant instead of the appellant.

It may be mentioned that a perusal of the impugned order will go to show that the appellant had hired the services of M/s. A.S. Lally and Associates (ASLA), SCO No. 88, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh for detective work on her husband and it was in respect of the said services hired that the complaint was filed praying for the refund of Rs. 5,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum for 10.4.1998 till realization of the amount and compensation of amount of Rs. 40,000/- for mental agony to the complainant besides Rs. 7,000/- as litigation fee.

THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in the first place is not based on any averment made in the application or affidavit and the same does not stand to reason in view of the fact that the appellant had hired the services of respondent, a detective agency to do detective work on her husband. Apart from it, the appellant as a reasonable and prudent person was expected to contact her Counsel within a reasonable period after the judgment was reserved by the District Forum to know about the decision of the case. THE application seeking condonation of delay of enormous delay is devoid of any reason much-less sufficient reason on the basis of which, the delay could be condoned and appeal be taken on board for hearing on merit. THE delay cannot be condoned for mere asked and as a matter of generosity as has been held by the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of, Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. O.P. Gauba, III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 National Commission and SC on Consumer Cases Page 2731 (NS). Resultantly, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal is dismissed as being barred by limitation. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.