GOYAL ROAD CARRIER Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 25. 10. 2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeal as barred by limitation against the order dated 3. 12. 97 of a District Forum.

(2.) ALONG with memo of appeal, an application supported by the affidavit of Bal Krishan, partner of the petitioner opposite party was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal. It was alleged in the application that the certified copy of the District Forum's order dated 3. 12. 97 was sent by the Forum to the petitioner by a registered letter (Diary No. 924 dated 15. 5. 98) which was delivered by the postman to a worker in the last week of May, 1998 at the back of the petitioner. Partners of the petitioner mostly remained away to Delhi and the said letter came to the notice on 28. 6. 1998 while cleaning office and arranging the papers. Worker receiving the registered letter had not informed regarding receipt thereof to any of the competent persons. It was further alleged that thereafter legal opinion was sought. Lawyer was engaged to file appeal on 1. 7. 1998. Appeal was filed on 2. 7. 1998 along with copy of the registered envelope.

(3.) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. R. K. Kapoor for petitioner is that taking the date of 15. 5. 1998 on which registered envelop was sent the period of 30 days for filing appeal expired on 15. 6. 1998 and there was about 16 days delay in filing the appeal. To be noted that in condonation application the petitioner alleges that it learnt of the receipt of the certified copy of the District Forum's order only on 28. 6. 1998. Counted from this date the appeal was within time. As may be seen from the order under challenge, the State Commission declined to condone the delay on ground of the affidavit of postman or worker not being filed by the petitioner. Considering the endorsement regarding date and diary number appearing on the envelope at page 35 there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the petitioner that this envelope was received sometime after second week of May, 1998. Even if the stand taken by the petitioner of their having come to know of the registered envelope only on 28. 6. 1998 is discarded, there was delay of less than 16 days in the filing of appeal. Non-filing of affidavit either of the postman or the worker was not fatal. We are, therefore, inclined to condone the delay in question subject to payment of Rs. 3,000 as cost to the respondent No. 1-Insurance Company by the petitioner. Case deserves to be remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided afresh on merit.