AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
The Present Appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 25.06.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karanataka (for short “the State Commission”) in her Complaint No.28 of 2012 whereby her Complaint was dismissed in default.
The present Appeal has been filed with a delay of about 410 days. Along with the present Appeal, an Application being IA No.5449 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay has been filed. From the averment in the Application, it is apparent that the Appellant became aware of the impugned order within four months of its passing. Still, the Appeal was not filed within time. The only explanation given is that it was the fault of her Counsel who gave the impression that he would be filing an Application before the State Commission on recalling of the order. When no satisfactory reply had been received from him, the Appellant contacted another Counsel and thereafter, filed the present Appeal.
The Application is opposed by the Respondent. It is submitted that there is a huge delay in filing of the Appeal and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been disclosed in the Application and therefore, the Application is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the Complaint was barred by limitation since the cause of action had arisen in the year 2001 and the Complaint was filed in the year 2011.
I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.
In the Application, the Appellant herself has admitted that she was aware of the impugned order of dismissal of the Complaint within four months of its passing. It is further submitted that her Counsel had promised to file an Application for recall of the order and it was only when she contacted another Counsel that she was able to file the present Appeal. However, no dates have been given in the Application as to when she had contacted her Counsel and what steps were taken by her when her Counsel was not responding to her queries and when did she engage another Counsel. It is strange that she waited for more than one year and then contacted another Counsel for filing the present Appeal.
It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The person who has come up with the request for condonation of delay needs to explain delay of each and every day and has to show that there was some reasonable ground for him not to come to the court within the period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” 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.”
The law also requires the Applicant to act with reasonable diligence as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”. 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.”
The reasonable reason must be of such nature which prevented him from coming to the court and which was not in his control. In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind. 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."
No reasonable explanation has come forward for condonation of delay and there is nothing on record which could show that there were reasons which prevented the Appellant from coming to this Commission within the period of limitation. Appellant was required to be more vigilant. Party’s carelessness cannot be termed as a reasonable ground to condone the delay. I found no merit in the Application. The Application is dismissed.
APPEAL
Since the Appeal is barred by limitation, the same is dismissed.