BHARAT OVERSEAS Vs. AIR LINK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed against the order dated 20th February, 2002 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi dismissing Complaint Case No. 373 of 2001 as being not maintainable reserving liberty to file civil suit, the complainant/appellant has filed application seeking condonation for delay in filing appeal. It is alleged that copy of said order dated 20.2.2002 was received in the office of appellant at Panipat on 14.3.2002. At that time, in connection with supervision of branch office, Vinod Goyal, Proprietor of appellant was at Karur and he came back to Panipat on 24.4.2002. Having learnt about the order on that date, Vinod Goyal contacted his Counsel at Delhi. Appeal could be drafted only by the third week of May and was signed by Vinod Goyal on 23.5.2002 and thereafter filed on 24.5.2002. It is alleged that delay in filing appeal was caused due to reasons beyond the control of appellant.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Abhishek Jain for appellant.

(3.) Admittedly, aforesaid order dated 20.2.2002 was passed by State Commission in the presence of Counsel of complainant/appellant. It is not the case of appellant that the Counsel who represented it before State Commission did not intimate about the passing of said order. In all probability, the Counsel must have informed Vinod Goyal, regarding the said order. Obviously, averment made in application that Vinod Goyal came to know of the passing of said order only on his return from Karur to Panipat on 25.4.2002 is false. Application is silent in regard to steps, if any, taken for filing appeal in between 20.2.2002 to 14.3.2002 when copy of said order is alleged to have been received at Panipat. Explanation as given in application for not filing appeal between 14.4.2002 upto 23.5.2002 is also highly unsatisfactory. Application is, thus, dismissed being without any merit. Appeal too is, dismissed being barred by limitation. However, in case the appellant chooses to file suit for the reliefs claimed in complaint, it can claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting these proceedings while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit in view of the decision in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC). Appeal dismissed.