AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Viswanath, J
The Revision Petitions are filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission"). The RP No. 674 / 2018 is filed against the order in Appeal No. 724/2017 dated 07.12.2017 and RP No. 677 of 2018 is filed against the order dated 19.05.2017 in Appeal No. 519/2017.
Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is owner of the car Verna Fluidic CRDi1.6 purchased from Respondent No. 1. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company insured the vehicle for a sum of Rs.6,21,000/- from 01.06.2013 to 31.05.2014 on payment of premium of Rs.17,662/-. The vehicle met with an accident on 15.06.2013 and the occupants of the car suffered grievous injuries. The Respondent No. 1 was informed about the accident and the vehicle was towed to service station of Respondent No. 1. An estimate of Rs.5,77,242/- was prepared. Respondent No. 2 appointed a Surveyor. The Surveyor on verification found that the driving licence of the driver was a fake one. The verification of the second driving licence had not yet been completed. Neither claim of the Petitioner was repudiated nor was the repair of the car carried out for more than a year and the vehicle was lying unattended. The Petitioner, therefore, filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Jalandhar.
The District Forum after hearing the parties, vide order dated 24.02.2015, directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the claim of the Petitioner on the basis of the documents. The Petitioner was awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation from Respondent No. 2 for delay in deciding the claim and Rs.1 lakh which the Petitioner had paid to Respondent No. 1, subject to the adjustment or refund after settlement of claim of the Petitioner by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner was also awarded Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses from Respondent No. 2.
The claim of the Petitioner was accepted in May 2015 at Rs.3,73,508.08 as per Surveyor's report dated 06.06.2014 against the higher claim of the Petitioner for settlement on total loss basis.
The Petitioner filed another complaint No. 316/2015 before the District Forum. The District Forum, vide order dated 03.06.2016 held that the Respondent was justified in deciding the claim on the basis of the surveyor report and the Complaint was without any merit and therefore, dismissed the same.
In RP No. 674/2018, the Petitioner filed appeal against the order of the District Forum, Jalandhar dated 24.02.2015. The State Commission opined that no sufficient cause was made out for filing the Appeal after more than 2 years 6 months and 21 days and therefore, dismissed the same. Since the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, appeal filed before the State Commission was also dismissed.
In RP No. 677 / 2018 appeal was filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 3.06.2016 passed by the District Forum, Jalandhar. The State Commission held that second complaint was not maintainable. There was no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and the same was upheld. The State Commission did not find any merit in the appeal and the same was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petitions before this Commission.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also carefully perused the record.
RP No. 674/2018 has been filed against the order of the State Commission dated 07.12.2017. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal held as follows:-
"No contrary judgment has been referred by the counsel for the applicant under which he justify his long delay of more than 2 years 6 months and 21 days in filing the appeal. We are of the opinion that no sufficient cause is made out in favour of the applicant/complainant to done a long delay of more than 2 years 6 months and 21 days, therefore, we do not see any merit in the application, the same is hereby dismissed.
Since the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, First Appeal No. 724/2017 also stands dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs."
The Petitioner appears to have not acted diligently and remained inactive for fairly a long time. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the settled legal proposition of law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party. The Petitioner has not been able to give adequate and sufficient reason which prevented him to approach the State Commission within the limitation.
It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons for not being able to come to the Court / Commissions within the stipulated period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under:
"It is, however, necessary to emphasise 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 condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay 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 burden is put upon the applicant to show sufficient cause for the delay. The expression 'sufficient cause' has been discussed and defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj&Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510, as under:
"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", inasmuch as 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 bonafide 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 he 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 explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. V. Bhootnath Banerjee &Ors, AIR 1964 SC 1336; LalaMatadin V. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal V. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 L2011 AIR SEW 1233); and ManibenDevraj Shah V. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412).
...............
It is a settle legal proposition that 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. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." 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. The legal maxim "dura lexsedlex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
...........
The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that party who has not acted diligently or remain inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)" has also described the test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"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."
Also in the case of "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has warned the Commissions to keep in mind while dealing with such applications the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"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."
In view of above, the State Commission has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner as no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the inordinate delay of more than 2 ½ years. Since the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, the appeal stood dismissed. In view of above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the State Commission. The Revision Petition stands dismissed.
In RP No. 677/2018 the Petitioner has filed IA No. 4028/2018 for condnation of delay of 43 days in filing the Revision Petition. The Petitioner was appellant before the State Commission and was duly represented by his counsel at the final hearing of the Appeal. The Counsel ought to have communicated the order of the State Commission immediately. The certified copy of the order was dispatched on 09.10.2017 which the Petitioner received on 13.10.2017. While the period of limitation expired on 11.01.2018, the Revision Petition was filed on 23.02.2018. Even after deducting the statutory period of filing the Revision Petition, there was delay of 1 month and 10 days in filing the Revision Petition. It is pertinent to note that from the date of the decision, i.e., 09.10.2017, delay was much more. In this case also, the Petitioner has not been able to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay, no adequate reason has been shown which has prevented him to approach this Commission within the period of limitation, let alone explaining the day to day delay in filing the Revision Petition. The only reason given for the delay, being the time taken in seeking instructions from his lawyer.
In view of the above, I find no sufficient ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, Revision Petition is also dismissed in limine being barred by limitation.
In the result, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed.