United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Chandubhai Dajibhai Dodiya

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2015 of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad ( in short, the State Commission) in CC No. 09 of 2011. Alongwith the present appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 365 days has also been filed.

It is argued that delay was inadvertent and had occurred due to unavoidable circumstances and administrative reasons. Copy of the order dated 30.10.2015 was received by the appellant on 20.11.2015 and, thereafter, it sought necessary approvals from the Headquarters etc. and thus the delay had occurred. It is submitted that appeal should not be dismissed only on the ground of delay since the appellant has good case on merits and, therefore, appellant should be heard on merits. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 1987 2 SCC 107, G. Ramegowda, Major and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore 1988 2 SCC 142 and State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and Ors. 1996 3 SCC 132.

It is argued on behalf of the respondent that delay has not been properly explained.

We have heard the arguments and perused the record.

It is settled proposition of law that matter be heard and disposed of on merits and should not be dismissed only on the ground of delay. However, in number of pronouncements the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the delay remained unexplained and is of considerable long period, the Court / Commission should not condone the delay and it is permitted to dismiss it on account 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 that 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 within the stipulated period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 burden is upon the applicant to show the sufficient reasons which prevented him to come to the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Basavraj & Anr. V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510" while explaining what amounts to 'sufficient cause' and 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, has held as under:

"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", 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 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 explanation 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. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v.Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412)

It is a settled 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 lex sed lex" 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 summarised 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 bonafide 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."  (Emphasis provided)

The test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) 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 the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. 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 Fora."

It is, therefore, clear that appellant is required to explain the sufficient reasons and that appellant has been acting with due diligence and has not been lethargic in its approach and that their approach was not casual while presenting the appeal or revision. From the contentions in the application for condonation of delay, it is apparent that only reason given for delay is that due to administrative procedure which they needed to follow, the delay has been caused. This certainly cannot be ground for condonation of delay. It cannot be permitted to seek condonation only on the ground that procedure which it has adopted while deciding whether an appeal should be filed, took lot of time in their department. The appellant is required to tell their employees to work and respect the law of the land and act fast so that appellant can move the Commission within the period of limitation. Only because their employees had acted in lethargic manner and took their own time while dealing with the matter, it cannot be said that there are sufficient reasons which prevented them from coming to the Court within the period of limitation. We are satisfied that appellant has not been able to explain the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the First Appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.