AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudip Ahluwalia,Presiding Member
The Ld. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, had dismissed First Appeal No. A/88/2022 filed before it by the present Petitioners/Opposite Party(ies) against the decision in the original Complaint Case No. CC/347/2017 which had been allowed Exparte by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North), in favour of the Complainant/Respondent on 13.9.2019.
The Ld. State Commission dismissed the Appeal without going into any factual matrix of the original dispute, but on the ground that it was barred by limitation in as much as there was a delay of 918 days in preferring the said Appeal, as it found no substance in the grounds seeking such condonation of delay which had been disclosed in IA No. 392 of 2022, which was also dismissed vide the impugned Order.
This Commission has perused the averments made in the aforesaid Interim Application No. 392 of 2022 filed before the Ld. State Commission, a copy of which is on record as Annexure-P4.
The contention raised in the said application was that around the middle of March, 2022, the family Members of Avijit Mukherjee, who was the Managing Director in the Petitioner Company, and had been arraigned as Opposite Party No. 2 in the original complaint, and Appellant No. 2 in the Appeal filed before the Ld. State Commission (even though by the own case of the Petitioner he was already dead by that time), had informed the Appellant No. 2 & 3 that they had learnt about a Warrant of Arrest pending against the said Avijit Mukherjee in connection with EA/133/2019, which was filed on behalf of the Complainant for execution of the order of the District Forum. It was further the case of the Petitioner that on getting such information, the Appellants applied for certified copy on or after 1.4.2022, but the same was obtained after a lot of delay on account of which there was a delay of 918 days in filing the Appeal.
The Ld. State Commission was not convinced with the justifications put forward on behalf of the Appellants in support of their application for condonation of delay.
It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners that no service of Notice in the original Complaint Case had been effected upon them, on account of which they had no knowledge of the Exparte order against them. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that it happens to be a Private Limited Company based in Delhi, and the deceased Avijit Mukherjee was its Managing Director who alone was based in Kolkata, while the other Directors being Delhi based had no knowledge of the manner in which proceedings were being conducted in the Ld. District Forum. The aforesaid submissions made by the Ld. Counsel before this Commission are contrary to the material available on record. It first of all transpires that service upon the Petitioner Company and its Directors of the original complaint had been made by substituted means i.e. by way of publication in the local newspapers, after Notices sent on their correct addresses were unserved. It is further seen from not only the Cause-Title of the original Complaint No. CC/347/2017(Annexure-P1), but also from the Memo of Appeal filed in the Ld. State Commission by the Petitioners themselves that the addresses of all the Directors of the Petitioner Company including the deceased Avijit Mukherjee, are of Kolkata, and are identical with that of the Company (Opposite Party No. 1/Appellant) itself. Even in the Memo of Parties filed in the present Revision Petition the address of not only the Petitioner Company but also of the other Directors namely Mohd. Sabahuddin and Javed Akhtar, are also of Kolkata.
So, the version put forth by the Petitioners to justify the delay of almost 2½ years in filing the Appeal is itself belied from the material available on record. In fine, the Petitioners have been unable to satisfy either the Ld. State Commission or even this Commission that they had any “sufficient cause” for the delay in preferring their Appeal in the Ld. State Commission. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to certain judicial pronouncements in this regard.
In “Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746”; the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed inter alia –
“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”, inasmuch 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 explanation 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 India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC), this Commission had observed as follows –
“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 Aggarwal 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.”
In, “Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal © Nos. 2054- 2055 of 2022, decided on 25.02.2022”, similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed inter alia –
“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 PopatBahiruGoverdhane V. 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 their side, the Petitioners have relied upon the decisions of this Commission in “Baidyanath Mondal Vs. Kanahaiya Lal Rathi & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 62” of the Hon’ble Apex Court in support of their contention that the original claim of the Respondent/Complainant was liable to be dismissed on merits.
But these decisions are of no consequence for the purpose of this Revision Petition, since its scope pertains only to the correctness of the impugned Order which is the subject matter of challenge, and in which this Commission finds no infirmity, since the Petitioners from their side had miserably failed to make out a case, “sufficient cause” justifying the long delay in filing the Appeal beyond the statutory period.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.