Chandranath Jha & Anr vs Joydeep Sinha & 4 Ors

This appeal assailing the order dated 10.06.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in CC No. 15 of 2018 has been filed with a delay of 39 days. However, as per the report of the Registry, the delay is of 246 days. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on IA no.3288 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay to admit the appeal.

The reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay are as follow:-

(a) In the second week of January, 2023 the appellants perused the said impugned order dated 10.06.2022. After perusing the said impugned order, the appellants were shocked to notice that they were erroneously and illegally held liable by the Hon’ble State Commission for payment of the directed amount jointly with the other opposite parties to the complainants/respondents no.1 and 2 herein.

(b) On 15.01.2023, the Appellants met the counsel who had represented them before the Hon’ble State Commission and discussed the impugned order dated 10.06.2022. The counsel advised the appellants to immediately challenge the impugned order dated 10.06.200 by filing a First Appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission.

(c) On 22.01.2023 the appellants took the copies of the documents related to this case from their counsel who had handled the matter before the Hon’ble State Commission, in order to engage a new counsel at New Delhi and file the subject First Appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission. On 28.01.2023, the appellants sought opinion from a lawyer at New Delhi on the further course of action in the matter. The counsel suggested some grounds on which the Appellants may file their appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission against the impugned order.

(d) Thereafter, between 29.01.2023 to 08.02.2023 the Appellants were involved with some urgent matters in their family and therefore, they could not travel to New Delhi during the said period for filing of the First Appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission.

Therefore, the appellants have prayed for the condonation of delay.

We have heard the learned counsel Mr. Madhurendra Kumar appearing on behalf of the appellants who argued for condonation of delay as per the IA. No documents to support any of the reasons for condonation have been brought on record.

In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown to 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 all 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 as the Court may regard as relevant.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not. The court has held 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.”

While dealing with the matters under the Act, it has been held in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. The court 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 reasons advanced to justify the delay are routine issues. There are no special or extenuating circumstances which justify disregarding the legislative command in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to the prescribed period of delay permitted under the Act. The special provision of limitation under the Act is with the aim to achieve the objective of the Act to ensure, speedy redressal of consumer issues and to obviate litigations that defeat this objective. In the instant case, the grounds advanced by the appellant do not indicate any sense of urgency to comply with the requirements of Section 24 A and are intended only to protract the issue through further proceedings. The cause shown for condonation of delay is insufficient and not supported by evidence. Hence, IA no.3288 of 2023 is not considered maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.