State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Tdi Infra.Ltd. vs Chaman Lal & Anr on 18 May, 2023
FA/79/2023 DOD:18.05.2023
M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:01.03.2023
Date of Hearing : 17.03.2023
Date of Decision : 18.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 79/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAHINDRA TOWER,
2A, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
SECOND FLOOR, NEW DELHI-110001
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
1.MR. CHAMAN LAL JINDAL S/O MR. GOPAL RAM
2. MRS. NEERJA JINDAL W/O MR. CHAMAN LAL JINDAL, BOTH RESIDENTS OF R/O C-31, NEHRU ENCLAVE, BEHIND JAIN HARDWARE, NARELA ROAD, ALIPUR, DELHI-110036 ....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: Ms. Kavita, counsel for the appellant.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 01.03.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 vide which Complaint Case No.151/2018 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi) M Block 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, IP. Estate, New Delhi-110002.DISMISSED Page 1 of 7
FA/79/2023 DOD:18.05.2023 M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.482/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Paras Arora S/o Mr. Deepak Arora, Authorized Representative 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 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.151/2018.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.4 to Para No.8 of the application read as under:
"4. It is submitted that the Impugned Order was passed by the Ld. DCDRC on 22.12.2022. The Certified copy of the Order dated 22.12.2022, bearing the sign and seal of the Ld. DCDRC dated 12.01.2023, was received by the Appellant from the Ld. DCDRC only on 19.01.2023 via speed post. Therefore, it was only on 19.01.2023, that the Appellant gained knowledge of the passing of the Impugned Order.
5. Thereafter, on 20.01.2023, vide an email the Appellant Company communicated the Impugned Order to the office of the counsel for the Appellant and instructed the counsel to prepare an appeal assailing the order of the Ld. DCDRC.
6. That since the present Appeal pertains to a project situated in the state of Haryana, the records had to be called for from the office at the said site. Moreover, collection and examination of voluminous documents was required to ensure that the complete and correct facts were brought on record. The said exercise required substantial time and effort. Only after undertaking the said exercise, the Appeal could be drafted and finalized and prepared for filing before this Hon'ble Commission.DISMISSED Page 2 of 7
FA/79/2023 DOD:18.05.2023 M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
7. That the entire exercise was attempted to be undertaken within the period provided by this Hon'ble Commission. However, due to the concerned site being outside the territory of this Hon'ble Commission, considerable time was spent in retrieving the documents, preparing the draft and subsequently having the same duly Authorised by the representative of the Opposite Party Company.
8. It is submitted that the draft Appeal was approved by the Appellant Company and shared with the counsel's office on 20.02.2023. Thereafter, the Appellant compiled the Appeal and filed it before this Hon'ble Commission on 01.03.2023. Thus, there has been a delay of 11 days in filing the present Appeal from the date of knowledge/receipt of a copy of the Impugned Order from the Ld. DCDRC."
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 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 22.12.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 01.03.2023 i.e. after a delay of 39 days.
DISMISSED Page 3 of 7FA/79/2023 DOD:18.05.2023 M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
9. 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 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 DISMISSED Page 4 of 7 FA/79/2023 DOD:18.05.2023 M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
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."
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 cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 FA/79/2023 DOD:18.05.2023 M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
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 22.12.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 21.01.2023. However, the appellant has failed to file the present appeal within the stipulated period
14. The reasons for delay stated in the application are that impugned order dated 22.12.2022 came to the knowledge of the appellant only on 19.01.2023 when received the certified copy of the same through speed post. Thereafter, on 20.01.2023, Appellant had instructed the counsel to prepare an appeal assailing the impugned order; due to the procurement of the documents from the project situated in the state of Haryana, the draft appeal was finalized and approved on 20.02.2023.
15. Regarding receiving of the impugned order, appellant has annexed an envelope with the appeal at in between page No.42 and page No.43 (stappled with page No.43).
16. A perusal of the same, one post office stamp is there at back side of the envelope where the date is not clear but month January, 2023 is shown the stamp area. It is clear that the impugned order was sent to the appellant in the month of January, 2023.
17. If we calculate the period of limitation from the date of receipt of the impugned order to the appellant on 19.01.2023 as stated by the Appellant in this application, there is delay of 11 days in filing the appeal.
18. However, appellant has failed to explain the cogent reason for the delay in filing the appeal. It is for the Appellant to explain the date of procurement of the document from the project situated in state of Haryana which required bringing on record. The Appellant has failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused after the DISMISSED Page 6 of 7 FA/79/2023 DOD:18.05.2023 M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
pronouncement of the impugned order. Therefore, it is abundantly clear from the above that the appellant was moving at its own pace unmindful that the appeal is to be filed within 30 days from the date of order.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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 7 of 7