State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Jai Chand Sharma & Anr. vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 30 May, 2023
FA/127/2020 DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA & ANR. VS CANARA BANK & ANR. D.O.D. 30.05.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 13.10.2020
Date of hearing: 10.03.2023
Date of Decision: 30.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 127/2020
IN THE MATTER OF
1. DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA
S/O LATE MR. HAR LAL SHARMA
2. MRS. ASHA RANI SHARMA
W/O DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA
BOTH R/O M-46, UIDHANPUR
NAVEEN SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032
(THROUGH : MR. V. K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
...Appellants
VERSUS
1. CANARA BANK
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER
ROHTASH NAGAR, DELHI-110032
2. M/S ICICI BANK LTD.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER
VIDEOCON TOWER, LOAN BRANCH
JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J. P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Allowed Page 1 of 9
FA/127/2020 DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA & ANR. VS CANARA BANK & ANR. D.O.D. 30.05.2023
Present: None for the parties.
PER : MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
ORDER
1. The present appeal has been filed on 13.10.2020 impugning order dated 04.03.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV (North-East), D.C. Office Complex, Bunkar Vihar, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093 in CC No. 115/2016. Along with this appeal, an application (IA No.150/2020) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been filed. Therefore, before deciding the present appeal on merits, the pending application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is yet to be disposed off.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that this application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 since it is arising from Complaint Case No.115/2016.
3. This order will dispose off an application (IA No.150/2020) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
5. The application (IA No.150/2020) filed along with the appeal, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is pending disposal. This application (IA No. 150/2020) is supported by an affidavit of Mrs. Asha Rani Sharma W/o Dr. Jai Chand Sharma, appellant no.2.
6. The appellants have prayed for condonation of delay on the grounds that they were under legal obligation to prefer the appeal within 30 days but due to Covid Pandemic-2019, the same could not be preferred. Moreover, impugned order was diarized for dispatch on 06.03.2020 by speed post. Since, there Allowed Page 2 of 9 FA/127/2020 DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA & ANR. VS CANARA BANK & ANR. D.O.D. 30.05.2023 was an appropriate circular with respect to limitation period for filing of the appeal, if any, duly circulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court during lockdown due to Corona Pandemic-2019. Further, during the lockdown period, appellant no. 2 got surgery of her both eyes during July-August 2020 and elder Son-in-law, Mr. Vipin Randhawa, of the appellants, suffered with Corona positive. Furthermore, the son and daughter-in-law, Mr. Tusar Sharma and Mrs. Isha Sharma, of the appellants also suffered with corona positive. Therefore, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal.
7. Para 3 to 6 of the application under disposal read as under:-
"3. That the appellants were under legal obligation to prefer the appeal within 30 days in view of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, but due to Covid Pandemic-2019, the same could not be preferred. Moreover, the Impugned Order was diarized for dispatch purposes on 06.03.2020, which was made available to the appellants on 11.03.2020 by Speed post. Therefore, the appeal was to be filed on or before 09.04.2020. Since, there was an appropriate circular with respect to limitation period for filing of the Appeal, if any, duly circulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court during lockdown due to Corona Pandemic-2019.
4. That even as on today, physical hearing have been hardly taking place and, therefore, virtual hearing of the cases are being preferred by both the sides as well as the Hon'ble Bench. In these circumstances, keeping in view the safety measures some physical filing were allowed but the Advocate for the appellants was in the general impression for waiver of the limitation period.Allowed Page 3 of 9
FA/127/2020 DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA & ANR. VS CANARA BANK & ANR. D.O.D. 30.05.2023
5. That during the lockdown period, the appellant no. 2 got surgery of her both the eyes during July-August, 2020. Thereafter, the elder Son-in-law, Mr. Vipin Randhawa, of the appellants, suffered with Corona Positive, therefore, the appellants were taking care of their aforesaid Son-in-Law as he was staying at Delhi in the house of the appellants during lockdown period.
6. That the Son and Daughter-in-Law, Mr. Tushar Sharma and Mrs. Isha Sharma, of the appellants also suffered with Corona positive, for which he was quarantine in the house and therefore, the appellants were taking care of him. During the Corona positive condition of the son of the appellants, the appellant no. 1 got admitted in Max Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi, for his old age ailments, where he was declared Corona positive. The appellant no. 1 remained in Hospital for more than 10 days and ultimately discharged on today i.e. 13.10.2020."
8. 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:
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the Allowed Page 4 of 9 FA/127/2020 DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA & ANR. VS CANARA BANK & ANR. D.O.D. 30.05.2023 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."
9. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an impugned order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of such order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 04.03.2020 and the present appeal was filed on 13.10.2020 with a delay of 193 days.
10. In order to condone the delay of 193 days, 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 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 Allowed Page 5 of 9 FA/127/2020 DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA & ANR. VS CANARA BANK & ANR. D.O.D. 30.05.2023 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."
11. 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."
12. 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 Allowed Page 6 of 9 FA/127/2020 DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA & ANR. VS CANARA BANK & ANR. D.O.D. 30.05.2023 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 Popat Bahiru Goverdhane 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.
13. 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.
14. Reverting back to the material available on record, we find that the impugned order was passed on 04.03.2020 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 02.04.2020. It is pertinent to mention that the copy of the impugned order dated 04.03.2020 was dispatched by the District Forum vide diary no. 121 dated 06.03.2020. It is pertinent to mention that neither medical documents/proof of surgery of both the eyes of appellant no. 2 nor corona positive reports of afflicted Allowed Page 7 of 9 FA/127/2020 DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA & ANR. VS CANARA BANK & ANR. D.O.D. 30.05.2023 persons have been filed as averred in para no. 5 and 6 of the application.
15. However, it has not been averred in the application for condonation of delay that entire limitation period shall be covered under Suo Moto Writ petition (Civil) no. 3 of 2020 of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer 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."
17. 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 04.03.2020, therefore, the period from 05.03.2020 to 13.10.2020 stands excluded in the present appeal. Since, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is applicable to the present appeal and the present appeal was filed on 13.10.2020, so there is no delay in filing the appeal.
18. Hence, the application praying to condone the delay is allowed.
19. Issue notice of the appeal to the Respondent through registered post and speed post. A copy of appeal be also sent along with notice.
20. The Appellant may also send notice to the Respondent via Whatsapp and E-mail. This is in addition to the already existing modes of service in order to ensure an expeditious process.
Allowed Page 8 of 9FA/127/2020 DR. JAI CHAND SHARMA & ANR. VS CANARA BANK & ANR. D.O.D. 30.05.2023
21. Notice be given dasti to the Appellant. The Appellant shall thereafter, file an affidavit stating that the service has been effected on the Respondent.
22. List on 17.07.2023.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced on 30.05.2023.
Allowed Page 9 of 9