State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Puneet Kumar vs Sh. Sandeep Bareja on 16 November, 2022
FA-97/19 16.11.2022
MR. PUNEET KUMAR VS MR. SANDEEP BAREJA
16.11.2022
Present: None
FA-97/19
This order will dispose of an application for condonation of delay
filed along with the present appeal.
The present appeal has been filed on 21.01.2019, challenging
the impugned order dated 06.12.2018 passed by Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi District), Vikas Bhawan, I.P.
Estate, New Delhi. Along with this appeal, an application under
Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking condonation of delay in
filing the appeal has been filed. The non-
applicant/respondent/complainant has filed reply to this application
on 04.02.2020.
The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. Averments made in the application and reply have also been considered.
It is the case of applicant/appellant/opposite party no. 2 that there is delay of two days in filing the appeal due to the fact that counsel of the appellant was out of station due to family function.
Para 3 of the application under disposal reads as under:
"3. That there is a delay of 02 days in filing the present appeal due to the fact that the counsel of the appellant was out of station due to family function and due to which there is a delay of 02 days in filing the present appeal. "
PAGE 1 OF 6 FA-97/19 16.11.2022 The non-applicant/respondent/complainant has submitted in his reply that being out of station of one of the advocates is no ground for condoning the delay. It is neither plausible nor supported with any evidence. Merely attending the family function is not a reason to delay the judicial process. The applicant/appellant/opposite party no. 2 is avoiding the execution proceedings. The delay of two days is incorrect submission by the appellant.
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."
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 06.12.2018 and the present appeal was filed on 21.01.2019 with a delay of 16 days.
PAGE 2 OF 6
FA-97/19 16.11.2022
In order to condone the delay of 16 days, 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."
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: -
PAGE 3 OF 6 FA-97/19 16.11.2022 "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."
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 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 PAGE 4 OF 6 FA-97/19 16.11.2022 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.
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.
Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the time for filing the appeal in the present case had expired on 05.01.2019. However, the Appellant was unable to file the Appeal within the stipulated time period. Also, no cogent reasons have been explained by the appellant to show as to why his counsel was not aware about the pronouncement of the impugned order. The only reason stated for the delay is that advocate was out of station due to family function.
From the perusal of record, it is to be noticed that the impugned order was passed on 06.12.2018 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order, the certified copy of impugned order is Annexure P-1 from page 16 to 19 of the appeal filed wherein the dispatch no. is DF/N15/2857-60 dated 12.12.2018. Even if the limitation is counted from 12.12.2018, the appeal filed on 21.01.2019 is beyond the period of limitation. Moreover, the order also mention about uploading of the order on the CONFONET. Hence, even date of receipt of order is of no consequence as the application under disposal nowhere mentions about date of receipt of order. The name of the counsel who was out of station due to family function has not been PAGE 5 OF 6 FA-97/19 16.11.2022 mentioned. It is nowhere mentioned that counsel had gone to which place in India and for which kind of family function. Even affidavit of applicant/appellant/opposite party no. 2 has been filed along with this application. The affidavit of the counsel who has been referred in the para 3 of the application under disposal has not been filed.
Therefore, it is abundantly clear from the above that the Appellant was moving at his own pace, unmindful that the prescribed period to file an appeal is thirty days from the date of order.
Having failed to show any sufficient cause, the application filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay is without any merit and needs to be dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.
File be consigned to record room.
(Pinki) Member (Judicial) (Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal) President PAGE 6 OF 6