State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Chiranji Lal Arya vs Dr S. Raman & Ors. on 25 September, 2024
A/578/2024 DOD:25.09.2024
CHIRANJI LAL ARYA VS. DR. S. RAMAM & ORS.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution : 29.08.2024
Date of Hearing : 06.09.2024
Date of Decision : 25.09.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 578/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. CHIRANJI LAL ARYA
S/O LT. MR. OMKAR,
R/O B-497, GOKALPURI,
DELHI-110094
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
(Through Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, Advocate
Mob.-9910002111 &
Email: [email protected])
VERSUS
1.DR. S. RAMAN (CMO) VEER SAVARKAR, AROGYA SANSTHAN, KARAWAL NAGAR, DELHI-110094
2. MR. SHIV KUMAR (TBHV) SUPPORTER DISPENSARY, GOKALPURI (DELHI GOVT.) NEAR POST OFFICE, GOKALPURI, DELHI-110094 ....NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present: Mr. Aditya Kr. Tripathi and Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, counsel for the appellant.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 29.08.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 passed in Complaint Case DISMISSED Page 1 of 9 A/578/2024 DOD:25.09.2024 CHIRANJI LAL ARYA VS. DR. S. RAMAM & ORS.
No.238/2023 vide which complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East, D.C. Office Complex, Bunkar Vihar, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.2433/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.
3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the CPC. However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.238/2023.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.9 to 14 of the application read as under:
"9. That despite the Impugned Order being passed on 19.09.2023, however, the Appellant received the copy of the said order on 29.09.2023 which was delivered to him by post.
10. That the Appellant approached the District Legal Service Authority, New Delhi to engage a legal aid counsel to file an appeal against the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Case bearing CC No.238/2023.
11. That Ld. Counsel Mr. Dhruv Gandhi was engaged in this matter and he was engaged on 11.01.2024. however, there was no response from the Ld. Counsel for a long period of time. Then the Appellant send an email dated 07.02.2024 in the Legal Service Authority to know about the status of his case but got no reply. Then the Appellant visited the Legal Service Authority physically on 20.03.2024 to know the status of the case then he was told by the officials that case as not maintainable and a letter dated 29.01.2024 was given to the Appellant. True copy of the letter of appointment DISMISSED Page 2 of 9 A/578/2024 DOD:25.09.2024 CHIRANJI LAL ARYA VS. DR. S. RAMAM & ORS.
of Ld. Counsel Mr. Dhruv Gandhi dated 11.01.2024 is annexed herein as Annexure A-11. True copy of the email dated 07.02.2024 sent by the Appellant in the Legal Service Authority to know about the status of his case is annexed herewith as Annexure A-12.
12. That thereafter the Appellant again approached DSLSA and his case was allotted with the present counsel was engaged only on 22.3.2024. True copy of the letter allotting the present counsel dated 22.03.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure A-13.
13. That the Appellant came to know about the engagement of the present counsel on 26th June 2024. However, in those days, the Appellant was unwell and was suffering breathlessness. Furthermore, the Appellant was unable to walk and was bedridden. Therefore, he was unable to meet with the present counsel.
14. That the Appellant after recovering met the counsel on 18.06.2024 as per availability of counsel and handed over the case file to the counsel. However, it was found that some of the relevant documents were missing, and the Counsel requested the Appellant to bring all the relevant documents so that the exercise of the drafting of the appeal could be started. Moreover, the counsel was travelling at this time and could not prepare and file the appeal and, therefore, it took substantial time to undertake the drafting exercise and has resulted in a delay, if any, which is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is stated that the delay in the present case has been caused by reasons beyond her control."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-
"Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:DISMISSED Page 3 of 9
A/578/2024 DOD:25.09.2024 CHIRANJI LAL ARYA VS. DR. S. RAMAM & ORS.
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed"
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of forty-five days from the date of impugned order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 19.09.2023 and the present appeal was filed on 29.08.2024 i.e. after a delay of 300 days.
8. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced 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 DISMISSED Page 4 of 9 A/578/2024 DOD:25.09.2024 CHIRANJI LAL ARYA VS. DR. S. RAMAM & ORS.
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."
9. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under:-
"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 Aggarwal v. 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."
10. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"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 DISMISSED Page 5 of 9 A/578/2024 DOD:25.09.2024 CHIRANJI LAL ARYA VS. DR. S. RAMAM & ORS.
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 PopatBahiruGoverdhane v. 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.
11. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Commission, 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 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.
12. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 19.09.2023 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 03.11.2024.
13. However, the appellant has failed to file the present appeal within the stipulated period and the reason for delay stated by the appellant are that certified copy of the impugned order was DISMISSED Page 6 of 9 A/578/2024 DOD:25.09.2024 CHIRANJI LAL ARYA VS. DR. S. RAMAM & ORS.
received by the appellant from the District Commission through post on 29.09.2023; thereafter, the appellant approached the District Legal Services Authority, New Delhi to engage a legal aid counsel to file appeal where Mr. Dhruv Gandhi, Advocate was engaged in this matter on 11.01.2024 but he refused from proceeding with the case as not maintainable on 29.01.2024 which came to knowledge of the appellant when he visited the Legal Service Authority on 20.03.2024; on 22.03.2024, Advocate Ms. Meera Kaura Patel was engaged but the appellant came to know the same on 26.06.2024; on 18.06.2024, the appellant handed over the case file to the counsel which took time to draft the appeal as some relevant documents were missing.
14. There is a delay of 290 days in filing the present appeal.
15. It has been submitted by the appellant that the certified copy of the impugned order was received by him through post from the District Commission on 29.09.2023, thereafter, appellant approached District Legal Service Authority to engage a legal aid counsel. However, the appellant has failed to explain the date when he approached the District Legal Service Authority to engage a legal aid counsel as free certified copy of the impugned order received to him on 29.09.2023.
16. If we exclude that period from the limitation when i.e. 11.01.2024 Advocate Mr. Dhruv Gandhi was engaged by the District Legal Service Authority who refused later i.e. 29.01.2024 till 22.03.2024 when Advocate Ms. Meera Kaura Patel was engaged, there is delay of 219 days in filing the present appeal.
17. Further, it has been submitted by the appellant that on 26.06.2024, he came to know about the engagement of the present counsel Advocate Ms. Meera Kaura Patel. Copy of letter allotting the present counsel Advocate Ms. Meera Kaura Patel DISMISSED Page 7 of 9 A/578/2024 DOD:25.09.2024 CHIRANJI LAL ARYA VS. DR. S. RAMAM & ORS.
dated 22.03.2024 has been annexed as Annexure A13 with this application, is reproduced as under for reference:
18. From perusal of the above, it clearly shows that the copy of this letter dated 22.03.2024, wherein present counsel Advocate Ms. MeeraKaura Patel was appointed, was also sent to the appellant for information. However, it is wrong to say that on 26.06.2024, the appellant knew about the engagement of the present counsel.DISMISSED Page 8 of 9
A/578/2024 DOD:25.09.2024 CHIRANJI LAL ARYA VS. DR. S. RAMAM & ORS.
19. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the appellant that he met with the present counsel Advocate Ms. MeeraKaura Patel on 18.06.2024. It is for the appellant to justify if he came to know about the engagement of the present counsel on 26.06.2024 then how it was possible to meet with the counsel before that.
Moreover, the appellant has failed to show the cogent reason to condone such delay in filing the present appeal as per law.
20. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicants/appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
21. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
22. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 25.09.2024 DISMISSED Page 9 of 9