AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order dated 17.01.2023 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint no.269 of 2018.
IA no. 4712 of 2023 pertaining to condonation of delay was also filed by the appellant on the ground that the impugned order of the State Commission had been received by him on 30.01.2023 and that the delay in filing of this appeal was on account of internal processes of the appellant in its regional office.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 was received by it very late and it was only thereafter that it was able to initiate steps for filing of the present appeal and therefore, the condonation of delay of 46 days may be condoned.
Counsel for the respondent, however, argued that as admitted by the appellant in his IA no. 4712 of 2023 filed along with the first appeal, copy of the order had been received on 30.01.2023 itself and therefore, there was no reason for the delay to be condoned.
The date of filing of the appeal is 03.04.2023 and after deleting the prescribed period of filing of the appeal of 30 days the delay in this case is of 46 days. The same has also been noted at the time of filing of the appeal by the Registry of this Commission. Counsel for the appellant has stated that he had not received the free copy of the impugned order from the State Commission and that the order was obtained by him from the website of the State Commission on 30.01.2023. No documents have been filed to explain whether the certified copy had been applied for and if so, the delay on the part of the State Commission that could warrant condonation of delay.
In view of the fact that the order had been downloaded on 30.01.2023, the appeal could have been filed on that basis seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order in case there was a delay on the part of the State Commission in issuing the certified copy. This has admittedly not been done.
It is a settled position of law that condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1963 needs to be satisfactorily explained for every day of delay and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and courts can exercise their discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown. The Apex 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.”
It is also a settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24 wherein the Hon’ble Court laid down that:
"5. 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.”
Subsequently, in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay as below:
“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."
In view of the foregoing the cause shown in the condonation of delay is not sufficient and therefore, the same is not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
Statutory deposit, if any, may be refunded to the Appellant.