State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. vs Mr. Om Prakash Yadav on 2 May, 2023
A/24/2022 M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. VS. MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV D.O.D.: 02.05.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 02.03.2022
Date of hearing: 22.02.2023
Date of Decision: 02.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 24/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.
JA HOUSE, 63 BASANT LOK,
VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTIOR/CEO
REGISTERED OFFICE & CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
SECTOR 128, NOIDA-201304
E-MAIL: sandeep. [email protected]
MOB: +91 9650595167
(Through: Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV
H. NO. 1136,
SECTOR- 10A, GURGAON,
HARYANA-122001
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: +91 8585903757
...Respondent
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 8
A/24/2022 M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. VS. MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV D.O.D.: 02.05.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Ms. Ruchira Gupta & Ms. Nancy Shah along with Ms.
Harshita Sharma, counsel for the appellant
Respondent in person
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed on 02.03.2022 impugning the order dated 29.11.2021 passed in CC No. 213/2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, (South West District), Sector-20, Dwarka, Delhi-110077.
2. Along with this appeal, an application IA-214/2022 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been filed. This application is duly supported by an affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Sabharwal, AR for the applicant/appellant.
3. This order will dispose off an application IA-214/2022 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal.
4. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
5. The application IA-214/2022 for condonation of delay has been moved without mentioning any provision of law. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No. 213/2017.
6. It is the case of applicant/appellant/opposite party that there is delay in filing the appeal due to the fact that appellant came to know about the passing of impugned order when letter dated 17.12.2021 was received from the Respondent. On 10.02.2022, ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 8 A/24/2022 M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. VS. MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV D.O.D.: 02.05.2023 appellant had applied for certified copy and received by him on 17.02.2022. Appellant has also taken ground of Covid-19 pandemic that as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, delay in the present appeal can be condoned. Para 4, 5 & 6 of the application under disposal read as under:
"4. That the Appellant received the information about passing of the Impugned Order on 18.12.2021 when the Appellant received a letter dated 17.12.2021 from the Respondent with respect to the same. Thereafter, the counsel for the Appellant and several employees of Appellant suffered from Omnicron and the all the work was suspended.
5. That on 10.02.2022, the Appellant applied for certified copy of the record of the Complaint CC/2013/2017 at the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South West and the same was supplied to the Appellant on 17.02.2022. Accordingly, the present Appeal was drafted and filed before this Hon'ble Commission without any delay on the part of the Appellant.
6. That as per Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is period of 30 days for filing of Appeal against the order of the District Forum. Further, as per order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022 in MA 665/2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, the limitation period has been extended till 28.02.2022 due to COVID-19 pandemic."
7. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:-
"Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 8 A/24/2022 M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. VS. MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV D.O.D.: 02.05.2023 the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty 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 Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less]"
8. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 29.11.2021 and the present appeal was filed on 02.03.2022 i.e. after a delay of 63 days.
9. In order to condone the delay of 63 days, 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 ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 8 A/24/2022 M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. VS. MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV D.O.D.: 02.05.2023 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."
10. 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."
ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 8 A/24/2022 M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. VS. MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV D.O.D.: 02.05.2023
11. 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 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.
12. 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 ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 8 A/24/2022 M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. VS. MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV D.O.D.: 02.05.2023 cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
13. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 29.11.2021 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 29.12.2021. However, the reason stated for the delay is that appellant came to know about the passing of impugned order when letter dated 17.12.2021 was received from respondent. On 10.02.2022, appellant had applied for certified copy and received by him on 17.02.2022. Appellant has also taken ground of Covid- 19 pandemic that as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, delay in the present appeal can be condoned. Hence, appeal could not be filed in stipulated time.
14. We have noted that the appellant has referred to the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ petition (Civil) no. 3 of 2020, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply."
15. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that impugned order was passed between the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 i.e. on 29.11.2021, ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 8 A/24/2022 M/S JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. VS. MR. OM PRAKASH YADAV D.O.D.: 02.05.2023 therefore, the delay from 30.12.2021 to 02.03.2022 in filing the present appeal stands condoned.
16. Having regard to the facts of the case and legal position having been explained, we find that sufficient cause has been shown by the Appellant to condone the delay and accordingly, the application praying to condone the delay is allowed.
17. Respondent has already filed reply to appeal on 27.07.2022.
18. Now, both the parties are directed to file their short written submissions along with judgments, if any, being relied by them within four weeks with direction to supply advance copies of the same to the opposite counsel.
19. List on 31.05.2023.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced On: 02.05.2023 ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 8