AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In these cases there is a delay of 713 days in filing of these Appeals. Heard arguments on IA Nos.1105 of 2021 and 1106 of 2021 filed by the Appellants seeking condonation of delay.
It is submitted by the Appellants in the applications that the impugned order is dated 04.12.2018. After passing of the impugned orders, the Appellants filed EA No.53 of 2019 before the State Commission wherein it was advised that 20% amount out of the total amount deposited by the Appellants shall be returned to him. However, they received ₹3,69,4125/-. It is submitted that in view of COVID-19 Pandemic there was complete lockdown in the country in March 2020 and they could not engage a counsel at Delhi to pursue the matter. It is submitted that the delay caused in filing of the Appeals is not intentional or deliberate and that the delay be condoned.
In these cases there is a delay of 713 days. The cause shown for condonation of delay is not sufficiently explained by the Appellants as the lock down due to COID 19 commenced from 20.03.2020. The Appellants were aware of their remedies and were also exploring options like execution before the State Commission.
In Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not. The 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.”
While dealing with the matters under the Act, it has been held in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. The 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 Fora."
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation” had recognized the fact of Pandemic and the period of limitation for filing the Complaints/Suits/Revision Petitions/Appeals had been extended and the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was exempted while calculating the period of limitation. In this case, the impugned order is dated 04.12.2018. Accordingly, the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 expired on 02.01.2019 which is much prior to the complete lockdown in the country due to COVID-19 Pandemic.
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. Accordingly it is held that the Appellants have failed to explain the cause of delay sufficiently. IA Nos.1105 of 2021 and 1106 of 2021 are, therefore, dismissed.
The Appeals are consequently dismissed as barred by limitation.