JAGJIT SINGH LALI Vs. AVINASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 30.5.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No.403 of 1999 filed by the respondent Shri Avinash Gupta against Shri Lalli, proprietor, M/s. Dashmesh Dry Cleaner and Dyers, SCO No.278, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. The appeal was filed on 6.2.2003 and has been reported to be time barred by limitation as the limitation provided by Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act) is 30 days from the date of the order which has been interpreted to be the date of communication of the order to the concerned party.

(2.) The appellant has in the application seeking condonation of delay alleged that he came to know about the impugned order of 30.5.2002 from one of his friend who had a chance to read the news-item regarding the decision of the complaint case published in some newspaper. It was also contended that the cutting of the newspaper was shown by the friend of the applicant in the month of September, 2002 and thereafter, the appellant contacted his Counsel and requested him to apply for the certified copy of the order which had not been received by him till then. The Counsel for the appellant moved an application for supply of certified copy of the order dated 30.5.2002 along with affidavit of the appellant and certified copy was delivered to the Counsel for the applicant on 14.11.2002 after paying several visits to the office. Thereafter, inadvertently, the Clerk of the applicant's Counsel namely, Shri Rajinder Kumar placed the copy of the said order in some other brief which could not be traced despite best efforts. It was alleged that while locating another file in the bunch of decided cases, the said Clerk found the certified copy of order on 28.1.2003 and as such the present application was moved for condonation of delay along with the main appeal. It has been alleged that there was no wilful or intentional act of delay on the part of the appellant but the same has been caused to be reasons mentioned above. The affidavit of the Clerk of the Counsel for the applicant was annexed with the application.

(3.) Shri Rajinder Kumar, Clerk in the Office of Mr. Rajan Malhotra, Advocate, in his affidavit deposed one para only which is as under : "that the certified copy of the order given to me on 14.11.2002 was inadvertently kept by me in the cases of decided files and despite best efforts the same could not be located. However, the same was found available on 28.1.2003 while locating another file in the bunch of decided cases. "