Pooja Gupta & 2 Ors vs Sarita Lohia & Anr

This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 30.8.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint No.350 of 2010.

None was present on behalf of the appellants even after service of notice by the Registry. The respondents were also absent inspite of service of notice. File perused, it is seen that there is a delay of 220 days in filing the present appeal. The main reason for condonation of delay as mentioned in the application of condonation of delay is as follows:-

"3. That above said delay was occurred due to respondents only as one the one side they were taking time of the appellants for compromise and also did some meetings with the husband of appellants.

That applicants and respondents had amicable relations between each other and their common relatives were there in between them who were trying to resolve the dispute but respondents had melafide intentions therefore intentionally and deliberately they did not compromise with the applicants.

That delay occurred just because of above said reason in filing of the appeal as there were quiet possibilities of compromise between the parties."

From the above, it is seen that the appellants knowingly wasted time in alleged negotiations with the respondents. Settling the dispute amicably is not a bad thing, but the party has to keep its interest in mind and to ensure that legal right of the party does not extinguish on account of any technical reason. In the present case, clearly the appeal has been filed with a delay of 220 days and no plausible reason has been given for such a long delay. The appellants were very much aware of the order passed by the State Commission. The appellants should have taken precaution to see that the appeal is filed in time, if the appellants felt aggrieved by the impugned order. Special limitation periods have been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, its Rules 1987 and its Regulations 2005 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;

"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 Foras."

Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

"4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.

Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay".

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court observed:-

"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".

In the present case, it is clear that the appellants have not acted with reasonable diligence in prosecution of their appeal. Clearly, the negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides are imputable to the appellants in filing the present appeal. In my view, the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay cannot be considered as sufficient cause for condoning the huge delay of 220 days. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the first appeal No.340 of 2014 also stands dismissed.