AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm, Vsm (Retd.), Member
As per the records of the Registry, there is a delay of 1668 days in filing of this Appeal. The Appellant filed IA No.5197 of 2022 seeking condonation of the said delay. As per the Appellant, the impugned order was passed by the learned State Commission, Rajasthan in CC No. 96/2016 on 26.09.2017. Thereafter, the Complainant met the Opposite Party (OP), notified the impugned order and requested them to handover the flat in question. After receiving the notice, the OP wrote a letter to the Appellant to take possession of the flat. When he went there, he was surprised to see someone else living in his flat. He immediately complained. However, no action was taken by the OP and he tried to mislead him and passed time. The Appellant filed contempt petition under Section 27 of the Act before the learned State Commission. After the State Commission issued Bailable Warrants, they came before the State Commission and stated that they are ready to give possession of the above-said flat. The Complainant proved that the said flat is being used by someone and produced complete record with photographs before the State Commission and asserted that the OP was trying to handover a used flat, while the Complainant paid for a new flat.
As it is now not possible for the OP to handover a new flat, the Complainant requested to refund the amount deposited with interest. But the OP completely denied the refund. These facts came on record during August 2020. While the Complainant was taking steps to approach the NCDRC, due to Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown, he was unable to pursue as he could not even contact his counsel. After lockdown was relaxed all the documents were to be translated to English, which consumed lot of time. As per orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court the limitation will started from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and added 90 days which completed on 28.05.2022. The translation of records also consumed a lot of time. Thus was the delay and he sought condonation of the same.
As per the Registry, the Appellant received the copy of the Impugned order dated 26.09.2017 on 05.10.2017. However, the present FA was filed on 30.05.2022. The Appellant cited onset of Covid-19 pandemic and need for translation of documents etc as reasons delay. He thus sought condonation of 1670 days of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo-motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation suspended the period of limitation for filing proceedings before any Courts/ Tribunals or any Authority due to Covid-19 Pandemic from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022.
In the present Appeal, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 26.09.2017. The limitation for filing the First Appeal before this Commission is 30 days from the date of the Impugned Order i.e. 26.09.2017. Thus, the limitation for filing the First Appeal expired on 25.10.2017. As the Appellant received the order on 05.10.2017, even if 30 days are added from that date, the period of limitation lapsed on 03.11.2017, which was well before the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic. However, the present Appeal has been filed on 30.05.2022. Thus, there is inordinate delay of 863 (from 04.11.2017 to 14.03.2020) days in filing the present FA.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” observed that:
“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 Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Appeal 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”, inasmuchas 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.
Now, examination of the material on record and the forceful arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, it is clear the impugned order in the case was passed on 26.09.2017 and the said order was received by the Appellant on 05.10.2017. Therefore, even if the date of receipt of the impugned order is considered, the period of limitation lapsed on 03.11.2017. The reasons stated for the delay was that due to Covid-19 pandemic and requirement for translation of the documents requiring considerable time resulting in unavoidable delay. The learned counsel vehemently argued that, the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, but for certain genuine reasons mentioned. The Appellant sought condonation of the delay occasioned.
Even if it is considered that the impugned order was passed on 26.09.2017 and he received the copy on 05.10.2017 as mentioned on the order of the learned State Commission. In these circumstances, the Appellant was reasonably expected to file the Appeal within the stipulated limitation period of 30 days i.e. by 03.11.2017. While there is delay of 863 days (from 04.11.2017 to 14.03.2020) which was well before the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic in filing the present Appeal and no sufficient cause has been brought out. The Appellant failed to explain or show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law.
In the instant case, the causes stated for delay as due to Covid-19 pandemic and English translation of the documents are grossly insufficient. There is no justification for such undue and protracted delay in taking necessary action in the matter. In the event of the OP not responding and resorting to non-compliance as averred, the complainant ought to have taken legal recourse established under the law. The reasons explained are routine in nature which does not reflect that the Appellant had taken due cognizance of the matter and acted in time as necessary.
With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the applicant/appellant failed to show any sufficient cause for such protracted and undue delay in filing the present Appeal. Therefore, the Application filed by the Appellant 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.5197 of 2022 filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal is disallowed. Consequently, the First Appeal No.403 of 2022 is dismissed.
All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.