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 198 days in filing of the present First Appeal. The Appellant filed IA No.14623 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay of 198 days.
Heard the learned Counsels for the Appellant and the Respondent No.1/Caveator on I.A. No.14623 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay and perused the material available on record.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to beyond the control of the Appellant. He further contended that the delay is not huge and he has good case on merits and therefore, it should have been condoned. He has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Manager, Indusind Bank Limited & Anr. Vs. Sanjay Ghosh, Civil Appeal Nos.4104 of 2022 decided on 17.05.2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;
(ii) Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos.10120-10121 of 2014, decided on 10.11.2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;
(iii) Hemlata Verma Vs. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., MANU/SCOR/17474/2019;
(iv) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. Vs. Katiji and Ors, MANU/SC/0460/1987;
The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 argued in favour of the State Commission order and sought dismissal of the Application seeking Condonation of delay as the Appellant failed to state sufficient cause.
In I.A. No.14623 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay the Appellant had mentioned the following reasons:
“1. That the appellant has filed the accompanying appeal, the contents of which may be read as part of the present application and the same is not reproduced for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
The Appellant is aggrieved with the final award and judgment dated 01.03.2023 wherein the Hon'ble State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. The certified copy of the impugned order was prepared on 02.03.2023 and the appellant received the same along with the legal opinion dt. 28.03.2023 of the dealing advocate.
The Regional Office, Lucknow of the appellant prepared a detailed sent the claim files along with the impugned order and legal opinion of the dealing counsel to the Regional Office II, New Delhi vide note dt. 03.04.2023 for further actions, which was received on 18.04.2023.
The matter was sent to the Head Office of the appellant for taking necessary approvals. The Head Office, New Delhi of the appellant approved the case for filing of first appeal before this Hon'ble Commission. Therefore, vide note dt. 29.08.2023, the Head Office, New Delhi deputed the undersigned counsel for filing of the First Appeal and defend the interest of the appellant insurance company.
The undersigned counsel received the claim file on 04.09.2023 from the appropriate authority. Thereafter, the undersigned counsel prepared the first appeal and sent to the appellant for approval and signatures.
It is respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor wilful and was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. It is submitted that the matter required extensive fair typing and translation, which consumed much of the time of the undersigned counsel for filing of the present appeal.
It is respectfully submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had always been handling the matter with due diligence and that important questions of law arise having for reaching consequences.
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:
A) Condone the delay of 196 days in filing the present accompanying First Appeal against the final Order and judgment dt- 01.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission, Lucknow, U.P. in Complaint Case No. 528 of 2017.
B) Pass any other or further order(s), which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The present First Appeal is against the order of the learned State Commission dated 01.03.2023. The limitation for filing of the First Appeal before this Commission is 30 days. However, the period of limitation for filing the First Appeal would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Appellant i.e. 02.03.2023 while the limitation lapsed on 31.03.2023. However, the present First Appeal was filed on 16.10.2023. Therefore, there is a delay of 198 days (01.04.2023 to 15.10.2023) in filing of the present First Appeal.
As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal / Revision Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed:
“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 CCcts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may CCll 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 CCcts as the Court may regard as relevant.”
The test to be applied while dealing with such cases is whether the Appellant 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 Appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”
The 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 First Appeals are entertained".
To condone such delay in filing, the Appellant needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the First Appeal after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ was explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 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”, in as much 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 CCcts 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 CCcts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the CCcts 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 satisCCctory 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)CPJ453(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 CCils 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.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Civil Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 decided on 08.04.2024 has held that:-
“30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).”
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.
The Consumer Protection law inherently mandates summery procedures and it is essential for the Appellant to ensure timely filing of this Appeal or explain the delay with reasonable and justifiable reasons. The statutory timelines for filing the Appeal is well defined. Examination of the material on record and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel reveals that the impugned order in the case was passed on 01.03.2023 and the period of limitation, commenced from the date of receipt of the order on 02.03.2023, while the limitation lapsed on 31.03.2023. It is an admitted position that the present First Appeal No. 1067 of 2023 against the order of the learned State Commission dated 01.03.2023 was filed on 16.10.2023. Therefore, there is a delay of 198 days (01.04.2023 to 15.10.2023) in filing of the present First Appeal which the Appellant needs to explain as required under law.
It is a clear position that while the limitation lapsed on 31.03.2023, it is stated that the Appellant was expected to file the same within the stipulated limitation period, whereas, the First Appeal was filed on 16.10.2023. Thus, there was delay of 198 days which needs to be explained by the Appellant. However, they failed to show sufficient reason or cause for delay of each day as required under the law.
The reasons stated in the instant case are routine in nature and grossly inadequate to justify such protracted delay. There is no justification for such undue delay while facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Appellant. The reasons explained do not reflect that the Appellant has taken actions necessary under law in time.
With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Appellant failed to show sufficient cause for such undue delay in filing the present Appeal. Therefore, the prayer in Application filed seeking Condonation of delay cannot be granted and accordingly, the same is disallowed on the above grounds.
In view of the foregoing, the IA No. 14623 of 2023 filed by the Appellant is disallowed. Consequently, the First Appeal No. 1067 of 2023 is dismissed.
All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.