State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sandeep Tiwari vs Arya Motors on 18 May, 2023
FA/227/2022 DOD:18.05.2023
SANDEEP TIWARI VS. ARYA MOTORS
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:18.11.2022
Date of Hearing :12.04.2023
Date of Decision :18.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 227/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. SANDEEP TIWARI
C-40/A STREET NO.2 PANCHAL VIHAR,
SHIV VIHAR, KRAWAL NAGAR, DELHI-110094
LANDMARK NEAR KABIR MANDIR
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
ARYA MOTORS (THROUGH G.M AND DIRECTOR)
3535, DARYAGANJ, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG,
NEW DELHI-110007
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
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 parties.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 18.11.2022 challenging the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 vide which Complaint Case No.58/2019 was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North), GNCT of Delhi. Room No. 2 & 3, Ground Floor, Annexe Building-II, Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Delhi -110054.
DISMISSED Page 1 of 6FA/227/2022 DOD:18.05.2023 SANDEEP TIWARI VS. ARYA MOTORS
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.702/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 5-7 days in filing the appeal, filed on 28.03.2023. 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 without 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.58/2019.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that judgment was received on 13.10.2022; applicant was clueless to file appeal. Para No. 2 of this application reads as under:
"2. That the impugned copy of the judgment dated 26-Sep-2022 was received in the home of the applicant on 13-Oct-2022. I am a common poor citizen of this country, who was completely clueless about how to file an appeal before this Honorable Commission. After asking knowledgeable people about this appeal, it took a longtime to arrange and verify document, which was necessary in this case. I submitted the all documents on 18-Nov-2022 in the honorable court for appeal filing as per the best of my knowledge, which was about 5-7 days more than the time given (30days) to appeal. For which I apologize to the Honorable Court."
6. 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 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:DISMISSED Page 2 of 6
FA/227/2022 DOD:18.05.2023 SANDEEP TIWARI VS. ARYA MOTORS [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 26.09.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 18.11.2022 i.e. after a delay of 23 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 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 DISMISSED Page 3 of 6 FA/227/2022 DOD:18.05.2023 SANDEEP TIWARI VS. ARYA MOTORS 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 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 DISMISSED Page 4 of 6 FA/227/2022 DOD:18.05.2023 SANDEEP TIWARI VS. ARYA MOTORS 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 26.09.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 26.10.2022. However, the appellant has failed to file the present appeal within the stipulated period.
13. The reasons for delay stated in the application are that certified copy of impugned order dated 26.09.2022 was received by the appellant on 13.10.2022 and due to lack of knowledge and arranging the documents required in the matter, the appeal was filed with a delay of 5-7 days.
DISMISSED Page 5 of 6FA/227/2022 DOD:18.05.2023 SANDEEP TIWARI VS. ARYA MOTORS
14. A perusal of record shows that the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 was received by the appellant on 13.10.2022. If we calculate the period of limitation from 13.10.2022, the date when the impugned order was received, there is a delay of 6 days. However, no specific dates have been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay by the appellant. As a result, the appellant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation/ sufficient reason for the delay in filing the present appeal.
15. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicant/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.
16. 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.
17. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced on 18.05.2023 DISMISSED Page 6 of 6