Vijaya Bank vs Rabin Malakar

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.11.2017 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal ( in short, the State Commission) in Complaint Case No. CC/232/2016. Alongwith the Appeal, application for condonation of delay of 232 days in filing appeal has been filed. It is submitted in the application that certified copy of the order was received on 08.12.2017 which was issued to the advocate of the Appellant / Bank. The appellant decided to file an appeal and accordingly Regional Office of the appellant received the documents from the Regional Office of Jadavpur Branch for engaging a counsel for preparing the appeal. On 02.01.2018 counsel was engaged and all the relevant documents were received by the counsel on 16.01.2018. It was observed by counsel for the appellant that appellant had not sent the complete set of documents. Accordingly, more documents were sought from the Regional Office which were received only in the last week of February and the same were handed over to the counsel in the first week of March and, thereafter, counsel prepared the draft and draft was sent around last week of March to the Regional Office of the Appellant for approval.

It was in the third week of April that counsel received the vetted copy for some corrections. After making corrections, matter was again sent to the Regional Office for signature by the competent officer. In second week of May, it was informed that competent officer of the bank has been transferred and, therefore, final copy of the appeal could not be signed. On getting instructions from the bank, counsel prepared the draft with new affidavit of competent officer and same was again sent to the regional office at Jadavpur and the file was inadvertently tagged alongwith some other file at Jadavpur. In first week of June when the counsel inquired about the signed copy of the appeal, the bank arose from the slumber and found that they could not trace the file. The counsel again inquired about the status of the draft as well as file but file could not be traced. It was only in August that file could be traced at Jadhavpur but the draft was missing. Since the soft copy of the appeal was available with the counsel of the appellant / Bank, same was again printed and sent to the appellant / Bank on 23.08.2018 at Regional Office for getting it signed which was finally signed and received on 24.08.2018.

It is submitted that delay of 232 days in filing the present appeal was neither intentional or deliberate but due to reasons stated above. It is stated that delay be condoned and appeal be admitted.

I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. There is no doubt that the matter relating to delay in filing the revision or appeal has to be construed in liberal manner and the Courts have to show liberal attitude while dealing with such matters. However, it is settled proposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. There has to be reasonable and cogent reasons which prevented the applicant to file the appeal or revision within the prescribed period of limitation. Where the delay is unexplained or not convincing and no sufficient cause is shown, the courts are justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The party is expected to act in a diligent and bonafide manner and where they act sluggishly or show laziness or adopt casual manner in dealing with their matters and cause undue delay, in this situation it can never be said that delay has been properly explained or that there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay. My view finds support from the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361", wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matter of condonation of delay 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 Supreme Court has held in the case of R B Ramlingam Vs. R B Bhavaneshwari I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) that Court has to apply the basic test while dealing with matters relating to condonation to delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said matter 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."

The Supreme Court has cautioned the Courts dealing with the matters under special acts that they have to keep in mind the aim and objective of the said act while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. In "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 facts mentioned in the application for condonation of delay shows callous attitude on the part of the official of the appellant / Bank. They were so casual that they tagged the file with some other file. Even the draft of the appeal was tagged with some other file and the appellant / bank could not trace it for months together. The appellant / Bank even did not bother to contact the counsel and take out another draft immediately on learning that they had lost the file and draft. The delay caused due to such callous and casual handling of the matter in no way can be considered a reasonable ground. I wonder if every matter the appellant handles or deals with, it acts in such dilly-dally manner. The attitude of the appellant was extremely 'couldn't care less' type, most casual and callous. I found no justification or reasonable grounds for condoning the delay. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As a consequence, appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.