State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Sh Chitranjan Pandey on 22 May, 2023
FA-36/2022 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY DOD 22.05.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 29.03.2022
Date of hearing: 20.01.2023
Date of Decision: 22.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 36/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
1. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
A-24/6, MOHAN COOPERATIVES
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD
DELHI-110044
2. M/S INFINITY RETAIL LIMITED
80/9, KISAN GARH, NEAR RAHIM HOTEL
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070
ALSO AT
E-150, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017
(THROUGH : MR. RAJAT BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE)
...Applicant/Appellant
VERSUS
MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY
602-D/19, WARD NO. 3
FLAT NO. B-3, URVASHI APARTMENTS
MEHRAULI, DELHI-110030
(THROUGH : MS. DIYA , ADVOCATE)
...Non-applicant/Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Allowed Page 1 of 9
FA-36/2022 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY DOD 22.05.2023
Present: Mr. Sandeep Khatri and Ms. Shivani Negi, counsel for the
applicant/appellant
Ms. Diya, counsel for the non-applicant/respondent
PER : MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
ORDER
1. The present appeal has been filed on 29.03.2022 vide diary no. 35 impugning order dated 08.04.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II (South-II), Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi in CC No. 253/2018. Along with this appeal, an application (IA No. 345/2022) 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 C.C. No. 253/2018.
3. This order will dispose off an application (IA No.345/2022) seeking condonation of delay of 325 days in filing the appeal.
4. We have given considerable thought to the submissions put forth by either side have been considered. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
5. The application (IA No.345/2022) filed along with the appeal, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is pending disposal. This application (IA No. 345/2022) was filed along with the main appeal on 29.03.2022 and is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Ajayan G, S/o Late Mr. Gopala Krishna Kurup as Branch Service Manager of the applicant/appellant.
Allowed Page 2 of 9FA-36/2022 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY DOD 22.05.2023
6. The applicant/appellant has prayed for condonation of delay on the grounds that copy of impugned order dated 08.04.2021 has not been provided to applicant/appellant by District Forum. The non-applicant/respondent sent impugned order dated 08.04.2021 through mail dated 12.06.2021, at that time office was not operative. Hence, the knowledge of the impugned order dated 08.04.2021 came in December, 2021. Thereafter, applicant/appellant has applied for the certified copy of impugned order dated 08.04.2021 and got the same on 29.12.2021. Due to pandemic and severe situation in Delhi, the office was completely closed from April 2019 to February 2022. Before challenging the impugned order dated 08.04.2021, the legal department of applicant/appellant has to take approval from other concerned departments of applicant/appellant. Necessary formalities from preparing the Demand Draft, to sign the appeal and engaging a lawyer where the appeal is to be filed usually takes time. After things got normalize, the head office as well as branch office of applicant/appellant are working with limited work force. Owing to the prevailing Covid-19, office of applicant/appellant was working on very lean workforce capacity. 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 copy of the impugned order which was passed on 08/04/2021, we never got from the Ld. District Commission Qutab Institutional Area- II, New Delhi in CC/253/2018. That the complainant sent the order through mail dated 12.06.2021, at that point of time the office were not operative hence the knowledge of the order came in the month of December, 2021 at a very late stage to legal department in LG Electronics India Private Limited then after applied for the certified copy of Order dated 08/04/2021 and got certified copy of order 29/12/2021. Even today the office is working with Limited strength and Allowed Page 3 of 9 FA-36/2022 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY DOD 22.05.2023 therefore, calls to file an appeal in this matter could not be taken. Due to the pandemic and severe situation in Delhi, the offices including the Head office of LG India which is situated in Delhi itself was completely closed from April 2019 till February 2022. During the said period the appellant company could not scrutinize the impugned order and take a call on filing an appeal in the captioned matter.
4. It is submitted that for challenging the order the legal department has to take approval from other concerned departments and persons for preferring an appeal. For filing an appeal, the appellant in coordination with the legal team ad empaneled lawyer(s) has to prepare the appeal. The other necessary formalities from preparing the Demand Draft, to signing the appeal and engaging a lawyer in the district where an appeal is to be filed usually takes time.
5. It is submitted even after things got normalize, the head office as well as branch offices of the appellant company are working with limited work force which is also one of the reasons as to why it took time streamline the process of filing an appeal.
6. It is submitted that though all the above process in normal course is speedy on the part of appellant company. However, owning to the prevailing COVID-19 scenario, the appellant company's corporate office is working on very lean workforce capacity, which lead to delay in procuring case related details from concerned branch and subsequently getting approval for filing appeal from the management. Immediately after securing approval, instructions were passed Allowed Page 4 of 9 FA-36/2022 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY DOD 22.05.2023 to the main counsel for initiating process of drafting appeal. The entire process from having the knowledge of the impugned order, the challenges during lockdown period & post lockdown period till filing of the appeal took time due to above detailed reasons."
8. A perusal of record shows that in Para 1 of the application as well as in prayer clause, delay of 360 days in filing the appeal has been mentioned.
9. 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."
10. 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 08.04.2021 and the present appeal was filed on 29.03.2022 with a delay of 325 days.
Allowed Page 5 of 9FA-36/2022 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY DOD 22.05.2023
11. In order to condone the delay of 325 days, the Applicant/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."
12. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in Allowed Page 6 of 9 FA-36/2022 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY DOD 22.05.2023 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."
13. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022decided 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 Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In Allowed Page 7 of 9 FA-36/2022 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY DOD 22.05.2023 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.
14. 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.
15. Reverting back to the material available on record, we find that the impugned order was passed on 08.04.2021 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 08.05.2021. It is pertinent to mention that the copy of the impugned order dated 08.04.2021 was dispatched by the District Forum vide diary no 259-262 dated 12.04.2021.
16. 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.
17. 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 Allowed Page 8 of 9 FA-36/2022 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS MR. CHITRANJAN PANDEY DOD 22.05.2023 balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply."
18. 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 08.04.2021, therefore, the period from 08.04.2021 to 28.02.2022 stands excluded in the present appeal and further appellant shall have limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. Since, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is applicable to the present appeal and the present appeal was filed on 29.03.2022, so there is no delay in filing the appeal.
19. Hence, the application praying to condone the delay is allowed.
20. Reply of appeal as well as stay application has been filed by the non-applicant/respondent vide diary no.3758 dated 04.07.2022.
21. Both the parties are directed to file their short written submissions along with judgment, if any, being relied by them within four weeks and advance copy of the same be exchanged with each other.
22. List on 12.07.2023 for final arguments and disposal.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 22.05.2023.
Allowed Page 9 of 9