AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm, Vsm (Retd.) Member
As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 335 days in filing this Revision Petition. Accordingly, IA No. 16769 of 2023 has been filed by the Petitioners seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, the Petitioners have stated that the same is filed against the order dated 19.10.2022 in FA No. 110 of 2019 passed by the learned State Commission, Punjab. The Petitioners have stated that the certified copy of the order was received by them on 27.10.2022. Thereafter, they filed Review Petition No. RP/14/2022 on 29.11.2022. However, the learned State Commission vide order dated 16.01.2023 dismissed the said review petition No. RP/14/2022 and the order was received on 29.01.2023. Thereafter, the petitioners sent the copy of the order to their Counsel, Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate stationed at Chandigarh for opinion. The said learned Counsel rendered opinion on 28.02.2023 to file Revision Petition before this Commission. The petitioners were under impression that Mr. Tajender Joshi, would prepare the case and file the same before this Commission. Whereas Mr. Joshi was under impression that the petitioners would get the case be filed before this Commission through an Advocate stationed at New Delhi. So, he did not pursue the matter further.
Thereafter, the respondent filed Execution Petition No. 101 of 2023 in the learned District Forum and forwarded a notice dated 29.11.2023 to the petitioners and the same was received by them on 01.12.2023. The petitioners then asked Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate about the status of the Revision Petition and he informed them that he was under impression that they would file the Revision Petition through some another Advocate stationed at New Delhi and thus he had not pursued the matter further. Thereafter, the petitioners asked him to prepare a Revision Petition and file the same before this Commission. They further submitted that, non-filing of the Revision Petition within stipulated time is not intentional and occurred due to communication gap/misunderstanding between the petitioners and their counsel.
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:-
i. Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order…”
In the present Revision Petition, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 19.10.2022. 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. 19.10.2022, while the limitation lapsed on 17.01.2023. However, the present Revision Petition was filed on 18.12.2023. Therefore, there is a delay of 335 days (18.01.2023 to 17.12.2023) in filing of the present Revision Petition.
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 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 19.10.2022 and the period of limitation, commenced from the date of receipt of the order on 19.10.2022, while the limitation lapsed on 17.01.2023. It is an admitted position that the present Revision Petition No. 2955 of 2023 against the order of the learned State Commission dated 19.10.2022 was filed on 18.12.2023. Therefore, there is a delay of 335 days (18.01.2023 to 17.12.2023) in filing of the present Revision Petition which the Petitioners need to explain as required under law.
It is a clear position that while the limitation lapsed on 17.01.2023, it is stated that the Petitioners were expected to file the same within the stipulated limitation period, whereas, the Revision Petition was filed on 18.12.2023. Thus, there was delay of 335 days which needs to be explained by the Petitioners. However, they 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 justification for such undue delay while facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Petitioners. The reasons explained do not reflect that the Petitioners have taken actions necessary under law in time.
With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Petitioners 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. 16769 of 2023 filed by the Petitioners is disallowed. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 2955 of 2023 is dismissed.
All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.