AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 646 days in filing this Revision Petition. Accordingly, IA No. 2367 of 2021 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, the Petitioner has stated that the Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2018 in FA No. A/1420/2015 passed by the learned State Commission, Maharashtra. He received phone calls for compliance of the said order and, thereafter, from 03.01.2019 after coordinating with the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 took delivery of the vehicle for repairs as per the State Commission’s Order, conducting superficial repairs for three months from 01.03.2019 to 10.06.2019, citing non-availability of spare parts. However, the petitioner was further disappointed with fraudulent repairs, as the engine started throwing serpentine smokeball, making it unworthy to drive on road. After 10.06.2019, he found that engine noise, gear noise and cabin noise became bad to worse. While he was advised to check for vehicle’s fitness for more time, the problems became more severe. Therefore, on 29.11.2019, the Petitioner left his defective vehicle for repairs at the workshop of Respondent No. 2, being not worthy of road and the vehicle remained there.
Thereafter, from March 2020, Covid-19/ pandemic broke out and still persists globally, due to which petitioner had difficulty in filing present Revision Petition. From 13.03.2020 onwards lock-down and Corona Pandemic ensued due to which physical filing from Mumbai, Maharashtra was not possible. Thereafter, during the pandemic, petitioner’s mother expired due to Covid, and later found out that online filing is possible. Hence, petitioner has prepared the facts herein mentioned to be considered and condoned by the NCDRC.
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…”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation suspended the period of limitation for filing petitions/applications/ suits/appeals/all other quasi proceedings before any Courts/ Tribunals or any Authority due to Covid-19 Pandemic with effect from 15.03.2020 till 30.05.2022.
In the present Revision Petition, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 18.12.2018. The limitation for filing of the Revision Petition before this Commission is 90 days. However, the period of limitation for filing the Revision Petition would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Petitioner i.e. 05.03.2019. While the limitation lapsed on 03.06.2019 well before the suspended period of limitation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to Covid-19 pandemic, the present Revision Petition was filed on 10.03.2021. Therefore, there is a delay of 646 days (04.06.2019 to 09.03.2021) in filing of the present Revision Petition.
As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing appeal / revision petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed 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 which is to be applied while dealing with such a case 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 a 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 18.12.2018 and the period of limitation, commenced from the date of receipt of the order on 05.03.2019, while the limitation lapsed on 03.06.2019 well before the suspended period of limitation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to Covid-19 pandemic. It is an admitted position that the present Revision Petition No. 288 of 2021 against the order of the learned State Commission dated 18.12.2018 was filed on 10.03.2021. Therefore, there is a delay of 646 days (04.06.2019 to 09.03.2021) in filing of the present Revision Petition which the Petitioner needs to explain as required under law.
It is a clear position that while the limitation lapsed on 03.06.2019, it is stated that the Petitioner was expected to file the same within the stipulated limitation period, whereas, the Revision Petition was filed on 10.03.2021. Thus, there was delay of 646 days which needs to be explained by the Petitioner. However, he failed to show sufficient reason or cause for delay of each day as required under the law.
The reasons stated in the instant case are routine in nature and grossly inadequate to justify such protracted delay. There is no apparent justification for such undue delay while facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Petitioner. The reasons explained are routine in nature which does not reflect that the Petitioner had taken the 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 petition. Therefore, the prayer in Application filed seeking condonation of delay cannot be granted and accordingly, the same is disallowed on the above grounds.
In view of the foregoing, the IA No. 2367 of 2021 filed by the Petitioner is disallowed. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 288 of 2021 is dismissed.
All other pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.