AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
This Revision Petition No.1525 of 2018 challenging the impugned order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘State Commission’) dated 18.01.2018 wherein the Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal No.FA/2017/904 was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant had not sufficiently demonstrate the reasons for delay of 132 days as bonafide.
As per the Report of the Registry, there is no delay in filing of the present Petition. Thus, I.A. No.21522 of 2018 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petition is rendered infructuous.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material available on record.
The learned Counsel for petitioner asserted that the State Commission erred while dismissing the Appeal on account of delay of 132 days in filing the same. This delay of 132 days was neither intentional nor malafide, rather bonafide due to the reasons as given in the Application seeking condonation of delay and the same ought to have been condoned and the First Appeal ought to have been decided on merits as the Petitioner has a good case on merits.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 argued in favour of the impugned orders passed by the Fora Below. He sought the Revision Petition be dismissed and relied upon the following citations:
(i) Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs.United India Insurance, (2011) 11 SCC 269;
(ii) Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India & Ors., AIR (2022) SC 577.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 argued in favour of the orders passed by the Fora below. He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition.
In the Application seeking condonation of delay filed before the learned State Commission, the Petitioner raised the following grounds:
“1. It is stated that an appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1. The entire statement made in the application should be read as the part of the application.
It is stated that describing appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 not taking any notice from him in the said case, the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 has said that no written statement is being produced on behalf of the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1, one sided order has been passed against the Opposite Party No. 1 on 14.06.2017.
It is stated that describing the Opposite Party No. 1 as absent, the one sided order has been passed while making one sided action against him by making a statement of written statement.
It is stated that the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 has never received any information directly from the applicant and neither has any work done by the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 directly in the form of an information nor coming in the court. Thus, the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 has never received any notice directly, the proceedings against him are disposed of in the judicial.
It is stated that in the case the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 has never received any notice directly or any of the authorized person or the adult member of his family has received neither the information s nor has neither been taken by them nor refuses to accept. Thus, the one sided action taken on the basis of any other person by giving notice in the opposite manner of the law is illegal and is liable to be dismissed as due to being adverse to law.
It is stated that the one sided action taken against the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 on the basis of notice of notice against the law is not in conformity with the procedural procedure of the notice and it is liable to be dismissed.
It is stated that any case must be resolved on the basis of resolution and defects. The appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 seeks to put his statement and want to submit his reply.
It is stated that the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 of this application is presently in judicial custody for 3 months, due to which, he got the copy through his authorised person, he receipt the copy on 01.08.2017. Thus, after about months time has been passed for filing appeal, delay in submitting appeals for obstructing the appellant's judicial custody, which is liable to be forgive in interest of justice and any case must be resolved on the basis of resolution and defects.
Therefore, it is prayed that kindly forgive for the delay. Kindly accept the delay appeal.”
On consideration of period of limitation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held as follows:
“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/Appeal 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.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Civil Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 decided on 08.04.2024 held:-
“30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).”
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.
In the present case, the Petitioner admittedly filed the Appeal before the State Commission with the delay of 132 days. The impugned order of the District Forum passed on 14.06.2017. The prescribed period of limitation for filing the Appeal is 30 days which lapsed on 13.07.2017. However, the First Appeal filed before the State Commission only on 23.11.2017. Therefore, there was a delay of 132 days in filing the FA before the State Commission. On perusal of the explanation rendered for the delay in filing the Appeal, I do not find any specific dates or necessary details mentioned as to what were the reasons for not filing the Appeal within time. These details were essential for consideration for condonation of delay and were not provided. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the learned State Commission has rightly not condoned the delay.
In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned Order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned State Commission. Therefore, the present Revision Petition No.1525 of 2018 is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.