Manoj Sharma vs Ahatesham Ahemad & Anr

The present revision petition has been field against the order dated 28.6.2019 whereby the appeal No.350/2019 filed by the petitioner against the order of District Forum dated 25.1.2019 was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was barred by time as there was a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal and that the appellant had failed to give the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay.

It is submitted that the order is illegal and is liable to the set aside on the ground that the medical certificate which was filed by the appellant was not considered. It is further argued that on merit the petitioner has a good case since the complaint was barred by limitation and that the petitioner was always ready to refund the money which was deposited by the respondent/complainant.

I have heard the arguments and perused the record. It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. No doubt a lenient view is required to be taken while considering the application for condonation of delay, but each case depends on its own facts. In the present case as argued by learned counsel, the petitioner had been attending the proceedings before the District Forum yet it did not file any affidavit of evidence in support of his contention. The finding of the District Forum, therefore, is based on uncontroverted testimony of the respondents/complainants. As regards the limitation in filing the complaint was concerned, the facts shows that the respondents deposited certain money with the petitioner for raising construction on a plot and no construction was raised by the petitioner, hence the period of limitation was continuing one and did not get extinguished at any point of time. The argument, therefore, that the complaint was barred by limitation is meritless.

The sufficient cause means those facts which prevented the petitioner from coming to the Court despite his best efforts. In the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and where sufficient reasons are not shown, the Courts have no other jurisdiction/discretion but to dismiss the complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

"12. 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."

In the case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Hon'ble has given the guidelines which needs to be followed by the Court/Commission while determining whether there was a sufficient reason for condoning the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

"4. 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 in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that special nature of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 needs to be kept in mind while dealing with such applications. Hon'ble Court has held as under: -

"5. 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."

Before the State Commission in order to justify delay the petitioner had relied on his medical certificate and has alleged that due to his illness i.e. problem in L-4 and L-5 of spinal cord and also on account of viral fever, he could not contact his counsel at Durg.

My attention is also drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the medical certificate which is placed at page No.31. This document is merely a certificate issued by the doctor and except this certificate there is no medical treatment record, test reports, X-rays or any other document to show that the petitioner was, in fact, suffering with disease of such a nature that he could not have moved out of his bed and could not contact his counsel. The order of the District Forum is dated 25.1.2019, and his ailment started from 20.2.2019. Almost one month he had to get the appeal prepared and file it. It is apparent that the period of limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days. The totality of the facts clearly show that the State Commission has rightly disbelieved this certificate. It is also clear that no injustice can be said to be caused to the petitioner by dismissal of his appeal since he is ready to refund the money to the respondents. He also did not lead any evidence before the District Forum to prove his contentions and the District Forum has decided the matter on the basis of contradicted testimony of the respondent. The present revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.