AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
As per the records of the Registry, there is a delay of 167 days in filing of the present First Appeal. The Appellant filed IA No.14083 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay of 166 days.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant on I.A. No.14083 of 203 seeking condonation of delay and perused the material available on record.
In the present Appeal, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 26.09.2022. The limitation for filing the First Appeal before this Commission is 30 days from the date of the Impugned Order i.e. 26.09.2022. As the Appellant received the copy of the impugned order on 13.10.2022, the period of limitation lapsed on 11.11.2022. However, the present Appeal has been filed on 28.04.2023. Thus, there is 167 days delay in filing the Appeal.
The Appellant has mentioned the reasons for delay in I.A. No.14083 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay as follows:
“1. That the Applicant/Appellant, above named has filed the Present First Appeal under the above case title, the contents of which are not being repeated herewith for the sake of Brevity and which may be treated as an integral part of this application also.
That, the Appellant/Applicant is preferring the delay Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before this Hon'ble Commission for condoning the delay of 90 days in filing of the present Petition.
That the delay in filing of the present First Appeal attributable on the account of the following reasons as explained in the later paragraph in the present Application before this Hon'ble Commission -
• That the Appellant had field the Consumer case No. 67/2011, titled as M/S Harish Processors Pvt Ltd Versus New India assurance Co. Ltd. before the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad and the said captioned case was filed and the case was handled and managed by the previous counsel as engaged by the Appellant/Applicant before the Hon'ble Commission.
• That post passing of the order by the Ld. State commission the Appellant being a domicile of Gandhi Dham Kutch, Gujrat faced numerous hardships finding a lawyer in Delhi, after careful consideration the applicant contacted the undersigned law firm to file a First Appeal against the order of the Ld. State Commission on the grounds as mentioned in First Appeal.
• That post receiving the complete paper-book and after having a preliminary discussion on the facts of the case, the counsel for the Appellant advised the Appellant/Applicant to recapitulate the necessary facts which is in their minds or which they could gather from other sources including perusal of relevant files and orders.
• That the Counsel of the Appellant further advised them to note down all the points and further requested the Appellant/Applicant to share the same with the undersigned counsel on urgent basis.
• On receiving the Documents, and on perusal of the Draft of the Application, the Appellant/Applicant suggested certain changes in the draft to be worked upon by the counsel of the Appellant. The draft was then sent to the applicant appellant for approval, which was then sent to the office of the counsel of the applicant/ appellant.
• That post the draft being finalized, and post the signatures and attestation of the Application/, the clerk of the counsel for the Appellant prepared the complete documents and the requisite set's to be filed before the Registry of this Hon'ble Commission and the same was filed by the Petitioner/Applicant on 28.04.2023, the delay accrued due to all the reasons was not at all intentional, hence the present application is filed with a bonafide interest and in interest of justice.
It is further mentioned by the Appellant/Applicant, that the Appellant/Applicant had taken actively taken part and pursued all the cases as pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court and the reasons for delay if any in attributing the filing of the first Appeal was not at all intentional.
That the reasons as stipulated in sub points of Para 3 of the Application under adjudication are the cumulative factors behind filing the petition with the delay before this Hon'ble Court.
It is further submitted that the delay in filing of an Appeal was not all intentional nor deliberate but because of the bonafide reasons as stated in the foregoing para's. Great hardship would be caused to the Appellant/Applicant, if the delay in present proceeding is not allowed.
The present application is being moved bona fide and in the interest of justice.”
As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal/ Revision Petition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” observed that:
“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 which is to be applied while dealing with such a case 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.”
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 Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Appeal after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 it was held 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”, inasmuchas 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) CPJ 453 (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.
Now, examination of the material on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, it is clear the impugned order in the case was passed on 26.09.2022 and the said order was received by the Appellant on 13.10.2022. Therefore, even if the date of receipt of the impugned order is considered, the period of limitation lapsed on 11.11.2022. The reasons stated for the delay was that due to finding a lawyer in Delhi, drafting of Appeal and arranging of necessary documents requiring considerable time resulting in unavoidable delay. The learned counsel vehemently argued that, the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, but for certain genuine reasons mentioned. The Appellant sought condonation of the delay occasioned in filing the present First Appeal.
Even if it is considered that the impugned order was passed on 26.09.2022 and he received the copy on 13.10.2022 as mentioned on the order of the learned State Commission. In these circumstances, the Appellant was reasonably expected to file the Appeal within the stipulated limitation period of 30 days i.e. by 11.11.2022. However, the present Appeal has been filed on 28.04.2023. Thus, there is delay of 167 days in filing of the present Appeal and no sufficient cause has been brought out. The Appellant failed to explain or show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. In the instant case, the causes stated for delay as due to finding a lawyer in Delhi, drafting of Appeal and arranging of necessary documents are grossly insufficient. There is no justification for such undue and protracted delay in taking necessary action in the matter. The reasons explained are routine in nature which does not reflect that the Appellant had taken due cognizance of the matter and acted in time as necessary.
With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the applicant/appellant failed to show any sufficient cause for such protracted and undue delay in filing the present Appeal. Therefore, the Application filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be granted.
In view of the foregoing, the IA No.14083 of 2023 filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal is disallowed. Consequently, the First Appeal No.488 of 2023 is dismissed.
All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.