A. Rajasekaran vs Malliga Thirumana Mandapam

The present appeal filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in CC no. 142 of 2017.

Appellant booked the respondent’s marriage hall on 12.07.2016 for a marriage events on 07.09.2016 and 08.09.2016 by paying an advance of Rs.10,000/- against receipt. On 13.08.2016, the appellant booked a new mandapam. On 17.08.2016, the appellant learnt of another event to be held at the Malliga Thirumana Mandapam on the same date. Respondent informed that he would verify the same but did not revert.  On 18.08.2016, they approached the respondent who, admitted that despite advance he had booked the hall for 07.09.2016 and 08.09.2016 by mistake and failed to make entries in the Register which led this situation.

On 18.08.2016, the appellant booked another marriage hall by the name S P D Mahal at a rent of Rs.50,000/- including all charges. To compensate the appellant, the respondent assured that he would pay the entire charges i.e., Rs.50,000/- since the mistake was entirely on his part. Due to the acts of the respondent, the respondent provided deficiency in service which caused irreparable loss and injury apart from mental agony. The appellant also suffered loss of Rs.13,500/- by way of booking rooms for guests and Rs.15,000/- by way of invitations distributed. Appellant issued a lawyer’s notice on 30.08.2016 received by the respondent on 02.09.2016 which was not replied. Complaint no.142 of 2017 was filed before the State Commission, Chennai.

On 16.11.2021 the State Commission held as under:

No representation for both. This complaint is posted today for appearance of both and for filing written arguments of opposite party and for arguments in list. When the matter was called at 10.30 a m, the parties were not present hence, passed over and called again at 12.15 pm, then also the parties have not appeared and the written arguments were also not filed by the opposite party. Hence, keeping the complaint pending is of no use as parties are not interest in prosecuting the case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed for default. No order as to costs.

Appellant has impugned this order in appeal before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the documents on record.

There is an admitted delay of over 440 days as per the Registry. Learned counsel for appellant contends delay of 260 days. The Act provides for condonation of delay under section 24 (a) as below:

“24 A – Limitation Period  - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the courts can exercise its discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown.  The Apex Court has held as under:

“12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

It is also a settled preposition of law that in matters of condonation of delay, the delay of each and every day has to be explained.  Delay cannot be said to be sufficient and reasonable if a person acts in lethargic manner and takes a long time in preparing the file or in getting translations done, or delays collection of documents. These are not reasons which could not have been avoided.  The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24 where it was held that:

"5. We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to consider the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay.  In Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora."

In the present case, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to justify the delay or in support of his contentions. While the Covid 19 pandemic was mentioned by the appellant in his argument as one of the reasons, even if delay for the duration of the period of the pandemic is considered in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition(C) no.3 of 2020 on 23.03.2020 allowing extension of period of limitation, the delay of 260 is still unexplained satisfactorily as there is no evidence to justify approaching this Commission, considering that the appellant had contested his case before the State Commission and was well aware of the legal framework of redressal of consumer complaints.

From the above reasons, it is apparent that the appellant has not made out sufficient grounds for condonation of delay of 260 days in filing the present appeal. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any reason to condone the delay which is inordinate and unjustifiable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.