AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 4.9.2018 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in consumer complaint No.1041 of 2017.
An application for condonation of delay of 76 days in filing the appeal has also been filed alongwith this appeal. In the application it is submitted that the impugned order dated 4.9.2018 was received by the appellant on 6.9.2018.
The reason given in application for condonation of delay have been mentioned in paras 3 to 8. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under: -
"3. The Branch Office at Ropar studied the impugned judgment and order dated 04/09/2018 and referred the matter for the decision of the concerned regional office.
The Regional Office at Chandigarh referred the matter for legal opinion. The Regional Office at Delhi received the legal opinion of the advocate Mr. B.S. Taunque on 10/09/2018 recommending filing an appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 04/09/2018.
The matter was referred to the Head Office of the appellant at Chennai thereafter. The Head Office concurred with the legal opinion and decision of the regional office to appeal the matter and referred the matter to Delhi Regional Office - 1 to file an appeal on 22/10/2018.
The Delhi Regional Office - 1 referred the matter to the present counsel to file an appeal before the Hon'ble National Commission on 25/10/2018. The counsel wrote to the Applicant for relevant documents which were made available to the counsel on 28/11/2018.
The counsel sought further documents and clarifications which were not available on the files given to the counsel. These documents were made available to the counsel on 10/12/2018. Since the print on these documents were dim and in fine print counsel sent the documents for typing. Once the typed copies were received a 1st draft of the appeal was prepared and sent for approval of the Delhi Regional Office - 1 on 17/12/2018. Certain changes were proposed in the draft and were sent back to the counsel for making suitable changes.
Accordingly, the counsel made the required changes and the corrected draft was sent back to the Delhi Regional Office - 1 on 19/12/2018."
From the reasons given in the application it is apparent that the delay is attributed to the movement of the file in the public sector undertaking from one table to another.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel and gone through the reasons in the application. There is no doubt that the matters relating to condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions and appeals have to be construed in a liberal manner. However, it is the duty of the applicant to explain convincingly by showing sufficient cause, the reasons for delay and his entitlement for the condonation but where the delay is unexplained and is not convincing and no sufficient cause is shown, the Courts are justified in rejecting the Appeals/Revision Petitions. In "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361", Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matters of condonation of delay has clearly held that the condonation of delay is not the matter of right and it is the discretionary power vested in the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Hon'ble 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 test to be applied while dealing with such matters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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."
It is apparent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines while construing whether the reasons given for condonation of delay, show that the petitioner/appellant has acted with reasonable diligence or not. In the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, Hon'ble Supreme court has cautioned the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to keep in mind the special nature of the period of limitation provided therein while dealing with such applications. It is the duty of the Court to see that the object of Consumer Protection Act is not defeated by condoning such undue, unreasonable and unexplained delay. Where the appeals are filed with an application for condonation of delay just to stop the execution, such efforts should not be allowed to be succeeded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"special period of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also has to be kept in mind while dealing with such application and the object of the Act which is expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes shall not be allowed to be defeated. Judging from this settled proposition of law."
From this it is apparent that the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer dispute has to be kept in mind while dealing with such application and where such object seems to have been defeated, the delay should not be condoned. In the present case besides the reasons that the file kept shuttling between various departments and different tables and between several officers and offices, no other reason has been shown. During the course of argument, it is also stated that the execution petition has already been filed. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the public undertaking should owe special obligation and duty and commitment under the law and they should not be given any premium while dealing with such application. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of "Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC) as under:-
"The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments."
From the above discussion it is apparent that the appellant has failed to perform their duty with due diligence and commitment while dealing with the present matter and that the grounds seeking condonation of delay by no stretch of imagination show that the appellant had been doing it's duties with due diligence and commitment. We are satisfied that the appellant has failed to give any sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.