State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jamshed Khan vs Sbi on 5 April, 2023
FA/82/2022 JAMSHED KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA DOD : 05.04.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:23.05.2022
Date of hearing :16.03.2023
Date of Decision :05.04.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 82/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. JAMSHED KHAN
S/O MOHD. HUSSAIN
R/O H.NO. 54/1877, B BLOCK,
SANT NAGAR, BURARI,
DELHI-110084
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
1.STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH MANAGER NIRANKARI COLONY, 2/10, PRADHAN MARKET, NIRANKARI COLONY, DELHI
2. INCHARGE, SBI SANT NAGAR BRANCH, GALI NO. 54, DELHI-110084 ALSO AT:
THE REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, IV FLOOR, SBI, PARLIAMENT STREET, SANSAD MARG, DELHI ....NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL) Present: None for the appellant.
Ms. Mayuri Chawla, counsel for the respondent. PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 23.05.2022 challenging the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 vide which CC DISMISSED Page 1 of 6 FA/82/2022 JAMSHED KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA DOD : 05.04.2023 No.880/2017 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-V (North-West District), CSC-Block-C, Pocket-C, Shalimar Bagh New Delhi-110088.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.626/2022 seeking condonation of delay of 58 days in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal.
3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application 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. 880/2017.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.2 and Para No.3 of the application read as under:
"2.That the appellant has prepared the draft of the appeal and the counsel of appellant was ready to file the same before the Hon'ble court but just before filing the said appeal, all of sudden some mishappening have taken place in the family of the counsel as her real brother in law/Jeeja has expired on 26.03.2022 that time the said appeal was in limitation as the appellant has limitation upto 28.03.2022.
3. That due to the above said shocking incident, the counsel for appellant could not file the appeal within time before this Hon'ble court which was neither intentional nor deliberate but it was beyond the capacity of the counsel. After that the counsel of appellant had some health issue and was not fit to attend the court after recovering her health, when the counsel for appellant went to the court for the filing the instant appeal, official has raised some objection in the appeal and directed to remove all objections and then file the same. In all manner, consequently it caused the delay more 25 days in filing the present appeal."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:-DISMISSED Page 2 of 6
FA/82/2022 JAMSHED KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA DOD : 05.04.2023 "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 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]"
7. 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 21.02.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 23.05.2022 i.e. after a delay of 61 days.
8. In order to condone the delay, the Appellants have 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 DISMISSED Page 3 of 6 FA/82/2022 JAMSHED KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA DOD : 05.04.2023 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."
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) DISMISSED Page 4 of 6 FA/82/2022 JAMSHED KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA DOD : 05.04.2023 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
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 21.02.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on DISMISSED Page 5 of 6 FA/82/2022 JAMSHED KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA DOD : 05.04.2023 23.03.2022. However, the reason for the delay stated in the application that due to sudden death of real brother-in-law/ Jeeja of the counsel of the appellant and some health issue of the counsel of the appellant, the appeal could not be filed within stipulated time.
13. In order to condone the delay, the appellant has to satisfy the Commission for delay of each day. However, the appellant has failed to show cogent/ sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. There is no document on record in respect of averment of the counsel of appellant for delay in the application. Even this application for condonation of delay is not supported by any affidavit.
14. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicants/appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
15. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period shall also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
16. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced on 05.04.2023.
DISMISSED Page 6 of 6