Sagar Colonisers Private Limited vs Dhanmati Devi & Anr

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 5.12.2018 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP in appeal no.1803/2005 of the respondents against the order dated 26.09.2005 of the District Forum in complaint No.191/2001.

The present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 149 days as reported by the Registry. Alongwith this revision petition, an application being IA No.12775/2019 has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner on this application. The grounds given in the application are that Director of the petitioner Mr.Sushil Kumar Banka, expired on 11.01.2009 during the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission and thereafter his wife Mrs. Manju Devi Banka became the Director of the petitioner. The whole family was shaken due to demise of Mr.Sushil Kumar Banka and for that purpose the proceedings were not done effectively and also the lady was having old aged parents who are suffering from old age diseases and she needs to spend lot of money on their treatment. She was not aware of the Order as her husband was taking care of the proceedings. In the year 2019, the petitioner was consulting with her counsel at Gorakpur, who sent the case papers to counsel at Delhi for filing the revision petition and he was unable to manage necessary expenses required for filing revision petition and towards legal fees of the counsel and the delay has occurred on these contentions. It is contended the delay be condoned.

In the application, the petitioner has not mentioned by how many days the revision petition is delayed. The Registry however has mentioned that the delay is of 149 days. It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. No doubt the Court/Commissions are vested with the discretion to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, but simultaneously the Courts/Commissions cannot ignore the provisions of law and unless the applicants explains that their was sufficient cause for such delay, the courts are prevented from exercising its jurisdiction in extending the period of limitation or condoning it. The party is required to show that it had been acting diligently and remained active and that the delay had occurred for the reasons which were beyond its control. In the case of "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the parties are required to show sufficient reasons. Unless it is done, the Courts have no discretion to condone the delay and it should dismiss the application. The Apex Court has held as under:

"12. 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."

In the case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the test to determine the sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"5. 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 case of "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578," the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned this Commission to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Court has held as under:

"5. 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 Fora."

As per the settled proposition of law that delay of each and every day needs to be explained by showing sufficient reasons and grounds. The only ground given is that the present Director of the petitioner who after demise of her husband on 11.01.2009 became the Director, due to the liability of her aged parents, could not effectively pursue the matter before the State Commission and that she was not aware of the passing of the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 and did not have enough resources to file the present revision petition. It is apparent that the applicant Mrs. Manju Devi Banka became the Director of the petitioner company, which is a Private Limited Company, somewhere in the year 2009 although the date is not disclosed and she is effectively running the company since then. She has also not shown that she has been acting diligently and bonafidely and took all steps to file the revision petition within time. Her only explanation is that she was not aware of the impugned order dated 05.12.2018. No reasons as to why she was not aware of the order has been shown or disclosed. It is not even disclosed when did she became aware of the impugned order. The impugned order clearly show that the petitioner was being represented through counsel before the State Commission till the impugned order was passed. I am satisfied that the Petitioner has failed to explain sufficiently, the reasons for delay. No grounds exist for condonation of delay of 149 days. The application is dismissed.

Revision Petition No.1753/2019 Consequently, the present revision petition also being dismissed being barred by limitation.