AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") dated 07.11.2017 in CCSR No.1284 of 2018 filed by the Petitioner against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II UT Chandigarh (for short "the District Forum") dated 11.08.2017 in complaint No.595 of 2014, whereby his complaint was allowed. He filed an appeal for enhancement of the amount awarded and it was rejected on merit.
This order is impugned by way of this revision petition. The Revision petition, is, however, filed with delay of 66 days and an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner / complainant.
IA No. 9780 of 2018 (condonation of delay)
Arguments on the application for condonation of delay are heard. In the application condonation is sought on the ground that after receiving the impugned order, the file was sent to the counsel, which got misplaced in the transit and he has to reconstitute the file for filing the revision petition. It is contended that delay was not intentional and was bonafide. It is submitted that this is sufficient ground for condonation of delay and it is prayed that delay be condoned.
The principle relating to condonation of delay is well settled. The Courts are not required to take a rigid view while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing appeals and revision petitions. However, it is the duty of the party who is seeking condonation of delay to set out the facts showing sufficient reasons and causes for the delay. The expression 'sufficient cause' has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510 as under:
"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", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces nor 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 bonafide 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, 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 explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. V. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin V. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal V. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 L2011 AIR SEW 1233); and Maniben Devraj Shah V. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412).
It is a settle legal proposition that 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. "A result flawing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." 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. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient case" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature".
In the case of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not a matter of right to get the delay condoned. It is discretion of the Court and where no sufficient reasons are shown for condoning the delay, the Courts / Commissions are within their power and jurisdiction to dismiss such applications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"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 for ascertaining sufficient cause has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) as under:
"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."
In another matter, while dealing with matters under the Act, Hon'ble Supreme court in "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, has held as under:
"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."
The petitioner / complainant, therefore, has to show from the facts on record that he had been acting with due diligence and that they had sufficient reasons for not able to file the file the revision petition within the stipulated period and that there were sufficient reasons which prevented him from approaching the Court within limitation. In the present case, the only ground shown is that file sent to the counsel got misplaced in the transit. No date is given as to when the file was sent to the counsel and when the petitioner became aware that file got misplaced.
It is settled principle of law that petitioner who is making condonation of delay has to explain the delay of each and every date. In the application, even the number of days for which condonation is sought is not mentioned and a gap is left. This further reflects on the conduct of the petitioner.
I find no ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, Revision Petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.