AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member
I.A. No. 17139 of 2023 (Early hearing)
The case has been taken up today on the interlocutory application being I.A. No.17139 of 2023 seeking early hearing in the matter. The grounds mentioned in the application are sufficient. In the interest of justice, the application is allowed. The Appeal is being heard today.
This First Appeal has been filed under Section 51(1) read with Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the State Commission in C.C. No.200 of 2017.
The present appeal has been filed with reported delay of 140 days. As the delay is neither insignificant nor small, the learned counsel for the appellants has been heard first on the application seeking condonation of delay in order to decide whether the same deserves to be condoned or not.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants no.1 & no.2 and for the respondent no.1 / complainant and the respondent no. 5 and perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 27.05.2022 of the State Commission passed in C.C. No. 200 of 2017 and the memorandum of appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the submissions made in the application seeking condonation of delay. Submission is that the delay is not intentional or deliberate. Time was taken to obtain the opinion of higher authorities for taking action. Later on, certified copies of the pleadings were obtained from the State Commission which also consumed some time. The delay was also caused due to festival season and in getting the papers translated from Hindi to English language. Learned counsel submits that the delay may be therefore condoned.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 contends that no sufficient cause has been furnished to explain the delay in filing the present appeal. The execution proceedings are already going on against the appellants before the State Commission and the delay involved in filing of the appeal is because of lackadaisical attitude on the part of the appellants, and the explanation as has been furnished cannot be said to be either valid or sufficient to condone the delay.
Normally, the Bench adopts a condescending indulgence in favour of the defaulting appellant who fails to file the appeal within the limitation period. It is ordinarily preferred to decide the case on merits rather than to thwart the cause at the very threshold on the ground of limitation. But while saying so it does not imply that the law of limitation wherever it is provided can either be blissfully ignored or soft paddled at will. Such kind of approach will entirety frustrate and defeat the very purpose which inspires the enactment on law of limitation. The statutory law regarding limitation, wherever it is provided has a salutary purpose to serve, and has to be respected and complied with. In no case can any forum judicial or quasi-judicial can ride roughshod on the solemn provisions regarding the law which provides limitation period. It goes without saying that when a particular order attains finality it simultaneously gives rise to a right to the other side and unless there is sufficient cause, which may justify the condonation of delay and satisfy the Bench that there were justifiable reasons which explain as to why the appeal was not filed within the stipulated period of time, the Bench cannot act either whimsically or capriciously. The judicial discretion which this Bench exercises in the matters of condonation of delay is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is a judicial discretion and has to be exercised judiciously. The availability of sufficient cause has to be seen in perspective of the conspicuous facts and circumstances of each case and the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds to vindicate the delayed filing has to be discharged by the appellants who seek judicial indulgence in this regard.
When the grounds taken in the applicant condonation of delay are evaluated to determine the sufficiency of cause which may justify the delayed filing of the present appeal, it is found that the grounds pleaded hardly qualify to be called valid or justified. Whenever a petition / appeal is to be filed by any company or institution, the process of obtaining opinions form higher authorities is a necessary step. But it does not mean that disproportionate time may be allowed for that purpose or that the same process should not be completed within a reasonable period of time. Alacrity and dispatch in adopting the process of obtaining necessary documents is also part and parcel of the duty and has to be done before any appeal / petition is filed. But that also does not go to imply that all the petitions / appeals should be filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Similarly, translation of the documents from Hindi to English language is a common exercise adopted in almost all the matters which are in different vernacular languages as they come in this Commission from different nooks and corners of the country having different vernacular languages. Such kind of pleadings as have been put forward are hackneyed and stereotyped pleadings and do not contain much worth in the circumstances of the case. The grounds pleaded in the application seeking condonation of delay are speak of nothing except managerial inefficiency and internal administrative indifference. The impugned Order was passed on 27.05.2022 and the stamp affixed on the certified copy of the impugned Order shows that free certified copy of the impugned Order was handed over / dispatched on 01.06.2022. The present appeal has been filed on 18.11.2022 after many months much beyond the period of limitation prescribed in such matters. It is not an insignificant delay. Yawning gap which separates the date of impugned Order and the date of filing the present appeal is too wide to be either lightly ignored or soft pedalled.
Even if this Bench leans liberally as much as it can and even if it does not count all other period and start from the date of delivery of first free certified copy of the impugned Order dated 27.05.2022 then too the period of delay is 140 days according to the pleadings and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants itself which remains wholly unexplained. The Bench certainly cannot approach this issue of delay in a manner which might render the whole law of limitation and its significance nugatory as if it is a meaningless proposition.
In the present case, the Bench feels constrained to observe that it does not see even a semblance of good explanation which may constitute a ground to condone the delay. The onus of the appellants to show the factual basis from which may emanate such ground remains undischarged. The application for condonation of delay being without worth or substance is unworthy of acceptance. Sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming.
The application being sans merit must therefore meet its legal nemesis and as such the same stands dismissed.
As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the first appeal too concomitantly stands dismissed.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their respective learned counsel as well as to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days.