Radhakrishnan .R vs President Cdrf & Anr.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Radhakrishan .R, against the order dated 03.09.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.421 of 2019.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant submitted two separate complaints from his home on 02.06.2018 through speed post no. RL085280241IN & RL085280122IN before the CDRF. It has been alleged that after receiving the applications & fees, OP1 neither provided a chance to the complainant to appear before the CDRF nor rejected the complaint. The complainant also informed OP2 about the deficiency and omission of law by OP1 but as a competent authority, no positive approach or action was taken by OP2. Hence the complainant had grievance against not registering the two complaints sent by post and therefore, filed the complaint before the District Forum. The complainant impleaded the President, CDRF (OP1) and Food & Supplies Department (OP2) as the opposite parties. District Forum in its order dated 24.12.2018 stated that there is no procedure in this forum to register the complaint(s) received through internet or post. As stated by complainant, the two complaints referred in this complaint are already received in this forum. Further, the registry was directed to register both complaints for hearing on its admission on 8.01.2019. Accordingly, the complaint was disposed of. State Commission vide its order dated 03.09.2019 dismissed the appeal of the complainant on the ground that:

(i) It is not permissible to array court/presiding officer against whose order the appeal has been filed as respondent.

(ii) Appeal was barred by limitation.

Hence, the present revision petition.

Heard the petitioner in person at the admission stage. The petitioner stated that the State Commission has not considered the true facts causing delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. The petitioner stated that the complaint was filed before the District Forum for not considering and registering the two complaints sent by post. Complaint has been disposed of by the order of the District Forum dated 24.12.2018 stating that there was no procedure in the District Forum to register the complaints received by post. The District Forum also ordered registration of these two complaints. The complainant preferred appeal of this order before the State Commission however, the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on other grounds. The petitioner stated that District Forum is also providing a service and there was deficiency in the service that they did not register the complaints sent by post. It was requested that the revision petition may be admitted.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner in person and have examined the record. The appeal was filed with a delay of about 150 days as mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner before the State Commission for condoning the delay. The application for condonation of delay mentions the reasons for delay as follows:-

"2. It is humbly submitted that this condonation for delay application is before this Hon'ble State Commission from a order against disposal of the complaint No.483/2018 of the appellants on 24.12.2018 passed by Hon CDRF New Delhi.

The True Copy of the order in CC 483/2018 received this appellant on 17th day of January 2019 through post. In as much the appeal ought to have been filed on 17th February 2019 but unfortunately appellant failed to file the same and that was due to delay in obtaining legal information's & delay in obtaining the information about Hon. Supreme Court orders and observations to prepare this appeal and also due to the some financial problems. Hence a delay of 150 days is caused in filing the appeal. The said delay is not due to my willful default."

The State Commission in the impugned order has considered the application in the following manner:-

"4. The application is as vague as it can be. It does not mention as to from whom the legal information was sought, what was the point on which legal information was sought, the date on which appellant got the information. Similarly it is not mentioned which information or observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court was sought and when the same was received. Financial problem is no ground to condone the delay. The application merits dismissal and the same is dismissed. With this the appeal must automatically stand dismissed as being barred by limitation."

From the above, it is clear that the reasons given by the State Commission for dismissing the application for condonation of delay are based only on the application submitted by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The petitioner's allegation that the State Commission has not considered the true facts which caused delay in filing the appeal is not substantiated.

It is not a right of any litigant to get the delay condoned in his favor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has observed the following:-

"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."

Even if there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay, a court may not condone the delay based on the other contents of the case. In the present case, the State Commission has also observed that both the complaints sent by the complainant by post were registered by the District Forum as per the order of the District Forum dated 24th December 2018 and thus, in fact, there was no grievance left for the complainant. I also agree that the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum with the allegation that the complaints sent by the complainant by post were not registered by the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 24-12-2018 ordered for registration of these two complaints. Thus, this order was in favor of the complainant and there was no point for filing the appeal, however, the appeal was filed by the complainant and the same was filed with delay of 150 days. The State Commission has not found the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay as sufficient cause for the delay and has dismissed the application for condonation of delay. As examined above, I do not find any reason why the application for condonation of delay should not have been dismissed by the State Commission keeping the facts of the case in view.

Based on the above discussion, I find that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal as being time barred. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this commission. Accordingly, revision petition No. 2238 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.