SAI TRANSPORT AND COURIER PVT LTD Vs. RUPESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service by way of non-delivery of the consignment sent by courier utilising the services of the petitioner courier.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are, that the complainant sent a parcel of two laptops (computers) through 4th respondent, M/s. Sai Transport and Courier Pvt. Ltd. , which was never delivered to the consignee. The matter was taken up by the complainant with the respondents but when the matter was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who by a majority order directed the O. P. Nos. 2 to 4 before the District Forum, to pay the cost of the computers, i. e. , Rs. 68,000 along with interest @ 6% p. a. together with cost of Rs. 2,000. By a minority judgment, one of the Members of the District Forum, while holding the opposite parties before the District Forum deficient in rendering service, but differed with the majority judgment only on one point, i. e. , as to whose liability it shall be? and to that extent, it held all the four opposite parties before the District Forum (instead of O. P. Nos. 2 to 4 before the District Forum) jointly and severally responsible to pay the decreed amount. Aggrieved by this order only the petitioner before us filed an appeal with a delay of over 5 months before the State Commission. An application for condonation of delay was also filed with the appeal. The State Commission did not see any merit in the application for condonation of delay and passed the judgment that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay and dismissed the application for condonation of delay as also the appeal. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us.

(3.) WE have gone through the material on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are unable to satisfy oursleves that sufficient grounds were shown to condone the delay of 5 months and 10 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission. It is not a delay of few days or some weeks. In the meantime, a right had accrued to the complainant, which cannot be disturbed if the aggrieved party does not exercise his right in time. It is for this purpose that the period of limitation has been prescribed under law. The exception can be made in this 'period of limitation', provided sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay, which has not been given in this case, hence we see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission.