AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
As per the records of the Registry, there is 413 days delay in filing these Revision Petitions. The Petitioner filed IA Nos.6424 of 2020 and 6439 of 2020 respectively seeking condonation of delay. In the said IAs, the Petitioner has stated that the Revision Petitions have been filed against the order of the Delhi State Commission dated 07.06.2019 in FA Nos. 298 of 2014 and 299 of 2014 with a delay of 210 days. The Petitioner contends that the filing of the present Revision Petitions incurred a delay attributable to the subsequent misplacement of the free copy of the order dated 07.06.2019, necessitating its retrieval for submission to the Legal Department for the purpose of initiating an Appeal / Revision Petition against the order of the learned State Commission. Subsequently, the Petitioner sought the engagement of local counsel in Delhi for filing of these Revision Petitions before this Commission, and the entire case files forwarded to the said counsel in December 2019. However, the office of the local counsel was closed due to winter vacation, delaying the procurement of certified copies until January 2020. Thereafter, the local counsel commenced drafting of these Revision Petitions in March 2020, which remained incomplete due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as it induced nationwide lockdown, resulting in the counsel office re-opening only in mid July 2020. The Petitioner diligently attempted to obtain a certified copy of the order from their office, but this endeavour spilled over into March 2020, coinciding with the lockdown declaration and consequent closure of various Courts, Tribunals, and Consumer Complaint Redressal Forums. As a result, advocates and clerks were barred from appearing before these entities, impeding access to necessary documentation. Consequently, the petitioner faced significant challenges in collecting and drafting the Revision Petitions and, therefore, as per him there is a delay of 193 days in filing these Revision Petitions. The petitioner emphasizes that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but rather a consequence of circumstances detailed in the applications seeking condonation of delay and also due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is beyond the petitioner's control. Moreover, the petitioner asserts that the balance of convenience favours their position and he has strong cases on merits and there is a great likelihood in succeeding in the present proceedings. The Petitioner also stated that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, if the present applications are not allowed. He, therefore, seeks the delay be condoned in both the cases.
As regards period of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 inter alia stipulates that:-
“Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-
Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order…”
In the present Revision Petitions, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 07.06.2019. The limitation for filing of these Revision Petitions before this Commission is 90 days. However, the period of limitation for filing these Revision Petitions would commence from the date of receipt of the impugned Order by the Petitioner i.e. 17.06.2019, while the limitation lapsed on 14.09.2019. However, the present Revision Petition was filed on 01.11.2020. Therefore, there is a delay of 413 days (15.09.2019 to 31.10.2020) in filing of these present Revision Petitions.
As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal / Revision Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed:
“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.”
The test to be applied while dealing with such cases is whether the Petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108” has held:
"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 in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578” has also observed as under:-
“while deciding the application filed, for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and that the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated appeals and revision petitions are entertained".
To condone such delay in filing, the Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ was explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 that:-
“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory application is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”
In Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), the NCDRC held:-
“12……… we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggawal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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 the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lingeswaran Etc. Vs Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal(C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022 has held that:-
“5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.”
From the above orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was want of bona fide on its part and that the applicant must satisfy that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting its case. Unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, a Court should not normally allow the application for condonation of delay under this Act.
Examination of the material on record and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel reveals that the impugned order in the case was passed on 07.06.2019 and the period of limitation, commenced from the date of receipt of the order on 17.06.2019, while the limitation lapsed on 14.09.2019. It is an admitted position that the present Revision Petition Nos. 973 of 2020 and 974 of 2020 against the order of the learned State Commission dated 07.06.2019 which was filed on 01.11.2020. Therefore, there is a delay of 413 days in filing of these present Revision Petition Nos. 973 of 2020 and 974 of 2020 which the Petitioner needs to explain the said significant long delay as required under law to reasonable satisfaction. However, he failed to show sufficient reason or cause for delay of each day as required under the law.
The above said reasons cited are routine in nature and grossly inadequate to justify such protracted delay. There is no justification for such undue delay while facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Petitioner. The reasons explained do not reflect that the Petitioner has taken actions necessary under law in time.
With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for such undue delay in filing the present petitions. Therefore, the prayer in Application seeking Condonation of Delay cannot be granted and accordingly as the grounds advanced do not justify the unduly long delay. Therefore, IA Nos.6424 of 2020 and 6439 of 2020 are Disallowed. Consequently, the Revision Petition Nos. 973 of 2020 and 974 of 2020 are Dismissed.
All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.