AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.24 of 2016. The Complaint was filed by the Respondent.
Along with the present Appeal, an Application No.18861 of 2018 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of -- days. The condonation of delay is claimed on the grounds as set out in the Application. Following are the grounds in nutshell:
(i) that the copy of the impugned order was received together with the opinion of Counsel Sh. Ramesh Totala in the Divisional Office on 08.09.2017, which was misplaced and the complete relevant file was not traceable at Aurangabad office;
(ii) the advise from the Nagpur Regional Office via e-mail dated 22.10.2017 was received for sending the file to them;
(iii) the office note thereafter was prepared on 22.03.2018 and sent to the competent authority for appropriate action;
(iv) it was thereafter sent to the Appellant's Head Office at New Delhi vide latter dated 23.03.2018;
(v) E-mail dated 10.04.2018 was sent to the Techno-Legal Department at Head Office at New Delhi and after studying the case, to the Regional Office Nagpur;
(vi) in response to the said e-mail, a covering letter was sent to the head office New Delhi by Regional Office Nagpur for doing the needful;
(vii) on 02.05.2018, Regional Office Nagpur was intimated through e-mail that they had not given clear recommendations;
(viii) Regional office Nagpur thereafter obtained an opinion from Mr. W.G. Paunikar, Advocate at Nagpur who vide letter dated 06.08.2018 advised the Company to file the Appeal;
(ix) Nagpur Office thereafter vide its letter dated 08.08.2018 sent the case to the Head Office New Delhi for filing the Appeal;
(x) after examining the matter, the Head Office handed over the matter to Sh. K. K. Bhat, Advocate the panel lawyer on 04.09.2018;
(xi) Sh. K. K. Bhat vide his e-mail dated 06.09.2018 asked the Appellant to reconsider the filing of the Appeal in light of the peculiar facts and law points involved;
(xii) the matter was thereafter examined afresh by the Appellant's authority at Head Office and asked for various documents which were furnished on various dates through e-mails/letters;
(xiii) the case being old, the complete set of record of the State Commission, which was required to be filed with the Appeal, was not readily available and it took considerable time;
(xiv) It was finally decided at the Head Office that the Appeal would be filed and it was conveyed to Sh. K. K. Bhat through e-mail dated 26.09.2018;
(xix) Sh. K. K. Bhat, then prepared the draft of the Appeal and the accompanying Application and sent to the office for perusal and vetting;
(xx) The draft was finalised but due to the holiday of festival of Janmashtami, Independence Day and another holidays in between, there was some delay in finishing the task.
It is submitted that the delay is not on account of the negligence on the part of the Applicant nor intentional or deliberate. It is argued by learned Counsel that the delay be condoned and the reliance is placed on the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation And Another, (2010) 5 SCC 459" and findings of this Commission in the case of "National Insurance Company Limited vs. M/s Baboo Lal Sood & Sons, 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 260". Relying on these judgments, it is argued that in the case of B. L. Sood's case (supra), the delay of 49 days was condoned and the in the case of Oriental Aroma's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para (16) has clearly held that although, the same yardstick has to be applied for deciding the Applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the cases where the Application is filed by the State and since the State represents collective cause of community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumers considerable time causing delay.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions in the Application, cases relied upon and the arguments of learned Counsel. There is no doubt that in a catena of judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing with the Applications for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals and Revision Petitions, the Court has to adopt a liberal approach. However, simultaneously, there are catena of judgments which say that the burden is upon the Appellant to explain the delay of each and every date by showing sufficient cause which prevented the Appellant from filing the Revision Petition or Appeal within the period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Basavraj & Anr. V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 14 SCC 81" has discussed the meaning of sufficient cause and has clearly held that the parties are required to act diligently and actively. They have to show that they have not remained inactive. They have to give a specific explanation and also to show that they had acted bonafidely and that there was sufficient and adequate reasons which prevented them from approaching the court within limitation. In para (9), (12) and (15), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
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", inasmuch as 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 explanation 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. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v.Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412)
It is a settled legal proposition that 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. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." 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. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
In Oriental Aroma's case (supra), there was a delay of 1067 days and while the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not condone the delay, the Hon'ble Court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the case of the Gujrat Industrial Development on the ground that the Appeal was filed with a considerable delay. There is no doubt that the Hon'ble Court has said that some amount of latitude in the case of State is not impermissible but where there is undue delay which remained unexplained and show inactivity lethargy casual approach on the part of the State, in such cases it cannot be said that the delay has been properly explained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)", which is a recent case of the year 2018, has clearly stated that the Government Departments are under special obligations to ensure that they perform their duty with diligence and commitment. The Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments.'
Already in the case of "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578," the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing with such Applications, the special nature of the Act, i.e., the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has to be kept in mind whose object is expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, has held that such object should not be allowed to be defeated by entertaining the belated objections. The Hon'ble 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."
Also in the case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the test which is applied by the Court while dealing with such matters such applications and the same is advised provided that the guide is to see whether the petitioner had acted with reasonable diligence. The Hon'ble 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."
Also in the case of "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that where sufficient cause of action has not been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay and that the matter of condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The Hon'ble Court had clearly held that if sufficient cause is not proved, nothing further is required to be done and the Application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"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 another case Baboo Lal Sood's case (supra) on which the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon, wherein this Commission had condoned the delay of 49 days. The delay was condoned in light of the facts of that case and also keeping in mind the number of days of which the delay had occurred. In the present case, the delay of 366 days, the period of limitation under the Act for filing the Appeal is of 30 days. The Appellant had received the copy and the opinion from the Advocate on 08.09.2017. Yet the file was shuffling from one desk to another and in seeking number of opinions and ultimately it could be filed only in October 2018. After more than one year. The file was received in the Appellant Divisional Office Aurangabad on 08.09.2017 but when it was sent to Nagpur Regional Controlling Office, is not mentioned in the application. What is stated is that the Nagpur Office wrote the e-mail dated 22.10.2017. This makes it clear that the Nagpur Regional Office sent the e-mail after expiry of period of limitation of 30 days and no explanation has been given as to what prevented both the offices i.e. Nagpur and Aurangabad to take action on the file within the period of limitation. Explanation for further period has been furnished but no explanation has come forward as to what prevented the Appellant from filing the Appeal within period of limitation which according to them started from the date Aurangabad office received the file along with the opinion on 08.09.2017. This shows that all these e-mails which were allegedly sent by Regional Office Nagpur and after receiving some papers, the office note was prepared after six months of the receipt of the file, no explanation as to what the officers were doing for all this period of six months. This conduct clearly shows the lethargy and inaction and casual approach on their part. The Head Office also received the file as per contention in the Application on 22.03.2018, but they could take any action on this only on 10.04.2018. Regional Office Nagpur after the advise was sought from it again by the Head Office, remained sitting on the file till 02.05.,2018 and sent the case only on 08.08.2018 to the Head Office. For three months, the Regional Office Nagpur kept the file and no explanation as to what prevented the officers to act fastly on a case in which the period of limitation had already expired. This only shows that the Petitioner had not been prudent about this case and was acting in the best negligent manner while dealing with the matters of importance. From the contention in the Application, it is also apparent that their lawyer to whom the file was sent by the Head Office only 04.09.2018, i.e. after more a month of receiving it from Regional Office Nagpur, advised them to reconsider the matter regarding filing of the Appeal. It was only after 22 days, i.e., 26.09.2018, when they finally advised its lawyer Sh. K. K. Bhat to file Appeal who promptly prepared it and filed it.
From the above explanation, which has come forward from the Appellant clearly shows that the Applicant had not acted with due diligence and promptness. Rather, they have been sleeping over the matter for long and have not been able to take a decision even on filing of the Appeal till 04.09.2018 by the time more than a year had passed from the date of passing of the impugned order. I am of the view that no sufficient cause has been shown by the Applicant for condonation of delay. The Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal is also dismissed.