AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 1203 days in filing of this Revision Petition. However, IA No. 13012 of 2023 has been filed by Petitioners seeking condonation of delay for 1052 days. The Petitioners averred in the said IA that the impugned order was passed on 22.01.2020. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed Review Petition No. 44/2021 against the Impugned Order before Ld. the State Commission. Due to time lapse during the pendency of the said Review Petition, the State Commission dismissed the same on 21.12.2021. Consequently, the Petitioners sought the assistance of their Advocate in obtaining the Certified Copies of the records before the State Commission. After which, the Petitioners were advised to file a Revision Petition before this Commission. Since the Petitioners did not know any Advocate in Delhi, it took some time to engage services of the present Advocate, courier the documents, prepare the draft. Further, substantial amount of time had lapsed in getting the affidavits notarized and to file the matter. Moreover, it also took some time to arrange funds for meeting the legal expenses in filing this Revision. Thereafter, sometime was also consumed in getting certain documents translated from Kannada language to English.
The Petitioners also averred that they have a very good prima facie case as the State Commission had grossly erred by refusing to exercise the jurisdiction on the ground that the Complainants herein were also availing the benefits under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has held that the remedies available under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are additional remedies over and above the other remedies including those made available under any special statutes; and that the availability of an alternate remedy is no bar in entertaining a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act shall be considered to be in addition to the remedies available under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Therefore, they prayed that the delay is not intentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice and equity.
As regards period of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 inter alia stipulates that:
“Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-
Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order…”
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. Limitation would be further extended by 90 days from 01.03.2022, i.e. till 29.05.2022. Since 29.05.2022 is Sunday, the matter filed on 30.05.2022 would be considered to have been filed within limitation.
In the present Revision Petition, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 22.01.2020. The limitation for filing of the Revision Petition before this Commission is 90 days. However, the period of limitation for filing the Revision Petition would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Petitioners i.e., 21.01.2020. While the limitation for filing Revision Petition lapsed on 21.04.2020, after excluding the period of as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the present Revision Petition, the delay would be counted from 30.05.2022. However, the present Revision Petition was filed on 07.08.2023. Therefore, there is a delay of 432 (31.05.2022 to 06.08.2023) days in filing of the present Revision Petition.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed as under:
“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 Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ was explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 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”, in as much 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 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.
From the examination of the material on record and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, it is clear that the impugned order in the case was passed on 22.01.2020 and the period of limitation commenced from the receipt of the order on 22.01.2020 lapsed on 21.04.2020. However, the Revision Petition was filed on 07.08.2023. The reasons stated are that the delay occurred due to petitioners did not know any Advocate in Delhi, it took some time to engage services of the present Advocate, courier the documents, prepare the draft. Further, substantial amount lapsed in getting the affidavits notarized and to file the matter. Moreover, it also took some time to arrange funds for meeting the legal expenses in filing this Revision. Thereafter, sometime was necessary in getting certain documents translated from Kannada language to English.
Considering the fact that the period of limitation in the present case is counted from 31.05.2022, after excluding the suspended limitation period due to Covid-19 pandemic, there is still a delay of 432 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. In the circumstances also, the Petitioner was reasonably expected to file the same within the stipulated limitation period i.e. by 30.05.2022 whereas, the Revision Petition was filed on 07.08.2023. Thus, there was delay of 432 days in filing the present petition which needs to be explained by the petitioner. However, no sufficient cause has been brought out. The petitioner failed to show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. In the instant case, the reasons stated for are routine in nature and grossly inadequate to justify such protracted delay. It is a matter of record that this is third layer of litigation of the same matter and thus all facts and records are readily available to the Petitioner and the need for translations are also known. There is no apparent justification for such undue and protracted delay while facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Petitioner. The reasons explained are routine in nature which does not reflect that the Petitioner had taken the actions necessary under law in time.
With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause for such protracted delay in filing the present petition. Therefore, the prayer in Application filed by the Petitioner 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.13012 of 2023 filed by the Petitioner is disallowed. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.2399 of 2023 is dismissed.
All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.