AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee; Presiding Member
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 05.06.2023 in Appeal No. 229 of 2022 of the State Commission Delhi arising out of Order dated 29.08.2022 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 516 of 2014.
Briefly the chain of events which led to the filing of the present revision petition is thus:
District Commission vide its Order dated 29.08.2022 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.10,13,433/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order failing which opposite party had to pay interest @ 24% p.a. till realization. Rs. 50,000/- was awarded towards compensation and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded towards costs.
Aggrieved by the same the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission but with a delay of 06 days as per the petitioner.
Vide its impugned Order dated 05.06.2023 State Commission refused to condone the aforesaid delay and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the point of limitation.
Ordinarily, the Bench could have issued notice to the respondent and waited for him to appear. But such a course would have inevitably delayed the process of adjudication for an indefinite period of time as in the wake of pendency of cases it is not very likely that the matter could be taken up at an early date. The Bench in that eventuality might also have to stay the operation of the order passed by fora below. Adopting such a course could have possibly been potentially detrimental to the cause of consumer justice. Hence, keeping in perspective the nature of the impugned Order and its narrow canvas which does not involve any complicated questions of law or fact, being a simple matter of dismissal on the ground of short delay in filing the appeal, the Bench deems it just and appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of the record and not to procrastinate it any further.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 29.08.2022 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 05.06.2023 of the State Commission and the memo. of petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of her submissions, has reiterated the grounds taken in the delay condonation application. Contention is that reckoning the limitation from the date of communication / knowledge the delay of 06 days in filing the appeal may not be termed as either inordinate or inexplicably prolonged. Submission is that the Order was passed by the District Commission on 29.08.2022. However, the petitioner did not receive a certified copy of the Order from the District Commission. Instead, vide letter dated 12.10.2022, the respondent intimated the petitioner regarding the Order of the District Commission. The said letter was received by the petitioner on 15.10.2022 via speed post. Thus, it was only on 15.10.2022, that the petitioner came to know about the Order of the District Commission. On 17.10.2022 the office of counsel for the petitioner was informed about the Order dated 29.08.2022. The office of the counsel for the petitioner started preparing a draft of the appeal. Submission is that the draft of the appeal was shared by the office of the counsel with the petitioner company on 15.11.2022. The draft appeal was approved by the petitioner company and shared with the office of the counsel for the petitioner on 16.11.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner compiled the appeal and filed it before the State Commission on 21.11.2022. According to the learned counsel reckoning the period of limitation thus, a delay of 06 days occurred which deserves condonation.
While dealing with the issue in question here regarding the limitation period, its breach and the availability or non-availability of sufficient cause to condone the delay where the appeal has been filed after the lapse of limitation period, the Bench deems it appropriate to first observe that the law on the point of limitation wherever it is provided has to be obeyed with deference and in no case ought to be shelved with indifference or be blissfully ignored. In the ultimate analysis, whether or not sufficient cause to condone delay is available or made out turns out to be a question of fact in each case and we have to see and keep in perspective the complete factual backdrop and the matrix contextual circumstances under which the delay is said to have occurred and have to then find whether or not the same constitutes a sufficient cause to be countenanced with in favour of the petitioner who prays that its cause should be adjudicated on merits rather than be sculled at the very outset on the ground of limitation.
While coming to the present case what we find is that the explanation regarding the said delay as had been furnished in the delay condonation application moved on behalf of petitioner has been quoted in the impugned Order and the same appears to be self evident and self speaking and needs no further dilation. The State Commission appears to have taken a somewhat stringent view of the matter without entirely appreciating the facts and circumstances in the right perspective as a result of which the petitioner’s cause remained unadjudicated on its merits.
In the conspicuous facts and circumstances of the case as are emanating from the record the Bench feels that this is a matter in which it would have been apposite for the State Commission to have judiciously condescended to consider the explanatory circumstances of the case as good enough to constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. The Bench feels, in the peculiar circumstances and facts of this case, that it would result in something deviant from the course of justice if the cause of the petitioner gets thwarted at the threshold stage and not be allowed adjudication upon its merits. The doors of justice ought to have been better kept ajar and the matter ought to have been justly adjudicated on merits in view of the explanation proffered on behalf of petitioner.
Sequel to the discussion above, the Bench finds that the short delay deserves to be condoned with a token cost. The impugned Order dated 05.06.2023 is set aside with the direction that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on or before the date fixed before the Sate Commission. The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with request to decide the substance of the appeal on merit as per the law. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 04.10.2023.
The principal onus of informing the respondent of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. It shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.
However, if for whatever reason, the respondent does not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring his presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondent.
In case the respondent still feels to have objections to the instant Order, he may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that he will raise his objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondent may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise his objections.
If the respondent moves appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondent does not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.