National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Navneet Sama vs Tranz Canz Overseas Services Pvt. Ltd. on 28 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3253 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 21/10/2013 in Appeal No. 450/2013 & 127/2013 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. NAVNEET SAMA S/O. SH. VIRAT KUMAR SAMA, R/O. H.NO. D-1115, SECTOR 40-B, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TRANZ CANZ OVERSEAS SERVICES PVT. LTD. SCO NO.61-63, 1ST FLOOR, MADHYA MARG, SECTOR 9-D, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Praween Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sumnesh Kumar, Advocate Dated : 28 Apr 2015 ORDER Petitioner being aggrieved of the concurrent findings of the Foras below resulting in dismissal of his claim has preferred this revision petition against the impugned order of the State Commission, UT Chandigarh in first appeal No.450/2013.
2. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days with a delay of 203 days. The petitioner has, thus, moved application for condonation of delay being IA/5499/2014.
3. Learned Shri Praween Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional. It occurred because the counsel for the petitioner could not draft and file revision petition as he was suffering from Hepatitis B due to viral infection.
4. Before adverting to the submissions on behalf of the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on the law on condonation of delay.
5. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;
"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant".
6. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows:
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed as under:
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the 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 this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras."
8. In view of the above-noted position in law, we now proceed to consider the explanation for delay in filing of revision petition. In order to properly appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look on the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under: -
"That the applicant counsel is suffering from a liver disease named hepatitis B due to viral infection so he could not file the present revision petition within time."
9. On reading of the above, it is clear that the explanation is highly vague and is devoid of the necessary details. It is not mentioned since which date the applicant's counsel was suffering from liver disease (Hepatitis B) nor the application is supported by any medical certificate to substantiate the disease. Thus, it is clear that the explanation detailed in the application is a make believe story which cannot be accepted.
10. In view of the discussion above, we are not satisfied with the vague explanation given for delay in filing of revision petition. We have no reason to condone the inordinate delay of 203 days in filing of revision petition. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER