AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, the State Commission) in IA No. 1408 of 2017 in Appeal No. 637 of 2017 against the order of the District forum Wayanad dated 20.12.2016 in CC No. 111 of 2014.
The brief facts of the case are that complaint was initially dismissed on account of being pre-mature. In an appeal by the petitioner, the appeal was allowed and matter was remanded back to the District forum for deciding the matter afresh and the petitioner was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the District forum. After the remand, District Forum appreciated the material on record produced by both the parties. The District Forum passed the order dated 20.12.2016, whereby it ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with direction to release Rs.1,00,000/- already deposited to the complainants.
Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay. The delay in filing of appeal was of 305 days which was sought to be condoned. The application, however, was dismissed with following observations:
"Not only that there is no merit in the appeal preferred by appellant advancing a new case to absolve his liability on the ground that he had ceased to be the managing trustee of the trust it is seen that no explanation has been offered by him for the inordinate delay other than stating that because of his illness he could not contact his advocate. After receiving the Order his advocate clerk was bed ridden for more than eight months is another plea raised to explain the delay. The reasons so envassed (sic) without any supporting evidence are totally unacceptable."
Before this Bench also, no reasonable explanation has been given for the delay of 305 days in filing the appeal.
It is settled proposition of law that delay of each and every day is to be explained by sufficient reasons. The explanation is required to be convincing and reasonable. There is also no dispute to the proposition of law that a liberal attitude has to be adopted while dealing with the application of condonation of delay but simultaneously the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements has warned that it should not be stretched to unreasonable limit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Suprerme Court 361" 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 criteria which the Courts need to take and the basic test which is required to be completed while dealing with such applications has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), wherein it is 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."
Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing with such applications, the special nature of Act in which the Commission is dealing has to be kept in mind. The 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."
Keeping in view all these propositions of law and the fact that no reasonable ground has come up for explaining the each and every day of delay, I find no illegality in the impugned order. No ground to disturb the said order has been made out. Revision Petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.