AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal assailing the order dated 14.07.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana, in CC No. 74 of 2015 has been filed with a delay of 69 days. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on IA no.16306 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay to admit the appeal.
The reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay are as follow:-
(a) The Appellant being a hapless individual with limited means, after receiving a copy of the impugned and order, studied it carefully and it took some time to decide the future course of action and the legal recourse to be taken in the present matter which contributed to delay in filing the First Appeal.
(b) The Appellant belongs to and resides in Secundrabad, Telangana and the First Appeal was to be filed before the Hon’ble National Commission at Delhi. Therefore, it took considerable time for the Appellant to seek legal opinion whether it is a fit case for preferring First Appeal, thereafter, to finalize and engage a Counsel based out of Delhi for the purposes of pursuing the present First Appeal, which further contributed in delay in preparation of the present First Appeal..
(c) Thereafter, the Appellant collated and transmitted records of the case which are voluminous in nature, from Secundrabad, Telangana to the Counsel based out of Delhi. Thereafter, it took time for the Counsel in perusing records of the case and giving the legal opinion on the varied aspects of the matter as well as to decide on the further course of legal action and the effective legal remedy to be pursued, due to the complexity of the legal issues involved and the records of the case being voluminous in nature. It is humbly submitted that the Appellant had fought a multi-front battle against the Rehab Mafia and the present Appeal warranted detailed scrutiny of proceedings before the Medical Council, Human Rights Commission, information obtained by RTI, criminal cases, etc. Therefore, these circumstances further contributed to the delay in filing of the First Appeal.
(d) The Appellant in the present Appeal is a consumer who was illegally detained and kept in illegal custody for nearly six months at Samatha Centre by the Opposite Parties. The Appellant has suffered at the hands of the Opposite Parties due to the false imprisonment, illegal detention, wrongful confinement for 6 months; business loss, mental torture, physical abuse, social stigma, forced labour by him, harm to his bodily integrity, privacy, violation of statutory, human and constitutional rights of the Appellant, etc; apart from the fraudulent acts, deficiency of services, unfair trade practices, deceptive trade practices, misleading advertisement, false inducement, negligence per se etc. by the Opposite Parties.
Therefore, the appellant has prayed for the condonation of delay of 69 days.
We have heard the learned counsel Ms. Anuradha Arputham appearing on behalf of the appellant on authority who argued for condonation as per the IA. No documents to support any of the reasons for condonation have been brought on record.
In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown to 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 all 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 as the Court may regard as relevant.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not. The court has 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.”
While dealing with the matters under the Act, it has been held in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. The court 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.”
The reasons advanced to justify the delay are routine issues. There are no special or extenuating circumstances which justify disregarding the legislative command in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to the prescribed period of delay permitted under the Act. The special provision of limitation under the Act is with the aim to achieve the objective of the Act to ensure, speedy Redressal of consumer issues and to obviate litigations that defeat this objective.
The cause shown for condonation of delay is insufficient. Hence, IA no.16306 of 2023 is not considered maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed in limine as being barred by limitation.