HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORP LTD Vs. VIRENDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal must necessarily fail against the preliminary bar of limitation. It is, therefore, wasteful to delve deeply into the merits of the case, and it would suffice to notice the salient facts pertaining to the question of limitation.

(2.) What first meets the eye is the somewhat unusual feature that the appellant - Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') was not even remotely a party to the proceedings before the District Forum, Hisar. Therein the complainant-respondent Sh. Virender Pal Singh had preferred a complaint against the Saffidon Primary Co-operative and Land Development Bank, Saffidon (respondent No.2 ). His primal grievance was that the aforesaid Bank was trying to indulge in an unfair practice by compelling him to purchase an electric motor to be installed in his tubewell, from the appellant-Corporation only and he sought the relief that the Bank be directed to release the balance amount of Rs.9,000/- of the sanctioned loan for the purchase of a motor from a dealer or trader of his own choice. Despite the issuance of the notice, the respondent-Bank did not choose to put in appearance before the District Forum, and, consequently, the proceedings against it were ordered to be taken ex - parte. Relying upon the evidence of the complainant, the District Forum directed the respondent-Bank to release the balance amount of the loan to the complainant unconditionally with liberty to purchase an I. S. I. mark electric motor from the open market.

(3.) The order of the District Forum was passed way back on the 13th of August, 1990. The present appeal has been presented before this Commission on the 2nd January, 1991. The appellant has, thus, to explain satisfactorily a delay of nearly four months beyond the prescribed period of 30 days for preferring the appeal under Section of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). It may perhaps be said at the very outset that the appellant has singularly failed to do so.