AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. P. Sahi, President Member
As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 107 days in filing of this Revision Petition. IA No.12836 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay for 107 days. The petitioner averred in the said IA that, the impugned order was passed by the State Commission, UP on 02.03.2023. Since the Advocate for the Insurance Company, the Appellant herein, had not forwarded his legal comments on the order. Therefore, as per the procedure, he was requested to send his legal opinion on the order passed by the learned State Commission. Upon receipt of the legal opinion of the learned counsel for filing Revision Petition, the concerned officer of the petitioner immediately forwarded the file to concerned authority for their approval to file the revision petition. Immediately on receipt of approval, the file was forwarded to their Delhi office. The Delhi office appointed one of the panel advocates for filing the revision petition without any delay. When the advocate requested for copies of documents filed before the lower for a, the concerned officer of the Appellant sought the same from the dealing advocate and, on receipt, forwarded to the advocate. Thereafter, the Revision Petition was drafted and forwarded for signatures of the authorized representatives and the present petition was filed.
The delay in filing the instant petition was not on account of any inadvertence or negligence of the Petitioner. Despite the due diligence and taking timely steps, it could not be filed within the limitation period. In the wake of the events that transpired, the Petitioner sought the leave of this Commission to condone the delay in filing the instant revision petition and afford opportunity to address the matter on merits. If the impugned order is not interfered, merely on grounds of delay, it will result in grave injustice to the Petitioner.
As regards period of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 inter alia stipulates that:
“Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-
i. Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order…”
ii.
Therefore, the present revision petition was to be filed within 90 days of the receipt of the order of the learned State Commission. From the perusal of records, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 02.03.2023 and the order was received on 13.03.2023, the present Revision was filed on 26.09.2023 and its admitted position that, there has been a delay of 107 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed 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 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 Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition 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 where 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”, 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 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)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 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.
From the examination of the material on record and forceful arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, it is clear that the impugned order in the case was passed on 02.03.2023 and the period of limitation commenced from the receipt of the order on 13.03.2023 lapsed on 12.06.2023. The Revision Petition was filed on 26.09.2023. The reasons stated are that the delay occurred due to not forwarded the legal comments by the Advocate who was engaged by the petitioner-insurance company before the State Commission. After the Petitioner received the comments of the Advocate, the Delhi office of the Petitioner Insurance Company appointed one of their panel advocate for filing the revision petition. He took some time in gathering documents and drafting the revision petition. Thus, there was a delay of 107 days. The delay was neither intentional or due to negligence.
It is a matter of record that the impugned order passed on 02.03.2023 was received on 13.03.2023 and there was delay of 107 days in filing of the petition. In the circumstance stated also, the Petitioner was reasonably expected to file the same within stipulated 90 days i.e. by 12.06.2023. Whereas, it was filed on 26.09.2023 and the delay of 107 days needs to be explained by the petitioner. However, no sufficient cause has been brought out. The petitioner failed to show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. The cause shown for delay that the issue pertains to departmental processes is very routine and grossly inadequate for such protracted delay. It is a matter of record that this is third layer of litigation of the same matter and thus all facts and records are readily available with the Petitioner. There is no justification for such undue and protracted delay in taking necessary action in the matter already known to the Petitioner. The reasons explained are routine. It does not reflect that the Petitioner had taken all actions necessary under law in time. With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause for such protracted delay in filing the present petition. Therefore, the prayer in Application filed by the Petitioner 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.12836 of 2023 filed by the Petitioner is disallowed. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.2378 of 2023 is Dismissed.
At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks for grant of four weeks’ time to comply with the order of the learned District Forum in the matter. As requested, four weeks’ time from the date of this order is granted for the same.
All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.