Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Arvindbansal vs Saregana Music Industries & Anr on 15 December, 2022

FA/51/2022   MR. ARVIND BANSAL VS. SAREGAMA MUSIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. DOD:15.12.2022


       IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
                          COMMISSION
                                       Date of Institution: 18.04.2022
                                          Date of hearing: 04.11.2022
                                          Date of Decision: 15.12.2022
                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 51/2022
 IN THE MATTER OF
 MR. ARVIND BANSAL
 FLAT NO. D-42,
 COURT RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX,
 SAKET, NEW DELHI,
                        (THROUGH: Mr. Mayank Arora, Advocate)
                                   ...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
                         VERSUS
 1. SAREGAMA MUSIC INDUSTRIES
    12-B, VANDHANA BUILDING, 11,
    TOLSTOY MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI
    ALSO AT:
    3 JESSORE ROAD, DUM DUM,
    KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700028
 2. MUSICLAND
    (A UNIT OF G.V.P. VIDEO PVT. LTD.)
    SHOP NO. 284, 1ST FLOOR,
    DLF PLACE, SAKET-110017
                              (THROUGH: Mr. Ritul Tandon, Advocate)
                                  ....NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS
 CORAM:
 HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
 HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 Present: None for the parties.

 PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

                                  JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed on 18.04.2022 impugning the order dated 01.02.2022 vide which CC No.388/2014 was dismissed Page 1 of 7 FA/51/2022 MR. ARVIND BANSAL VS. SAREGAMA MUSIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. DOD:15.12.2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (South), Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

2. This order will dispose off an application (IA-432/2022) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and filed alongwith the appeal.

3. The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. However, is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.388/2014.

4. The present appeal was filed on 18.04.2022, challenging the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2022. Along with the appeal, an application (IA/432/2022) has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 46 days on the ground that the present matter before the learned District Forum was argued by a different counsel and present counsel was approached at a later stage; Appellant had received the copy of the impugned judgment from the District Commission on 24.02.2022 and the present counsel had Covid-19 like symptoms and was in quarantine for a week. Therefore, no prejudice shall be caused to the opposite party.

5. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

6. The Respondent has filed reply to the aforementioned application, in which it has been submitted that the present application seeking condonation of delay should not be accepted as the Appellant has failed to show actual cause of delay in filing the appeal or fails to attach any proof of the Covid like symptoms or any doctor's suggestions and has even failed to mention any date from when the Page 2 of 7 FA/51/2022 MR. ARVIND BANSAL VS. SAREGAMA MUSIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. DOD:15.12.2022 counsel was quarantine and till which date he remained quarantine and has symptoms like Covid-19.

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 judgment was pronounced on 01.02.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 18.04.2022 i.e. after a delay of 46 days.

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:-

FA/51/2022 MR. ARVIND BANSAL VS. SAREGAMA MUSIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. DOD:15.12.2022 "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 AnshulAggarwal 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, Page 4 of 7 FA/51/2022 MR. ARVIND BANSAL VS. SAREGAMA MUSIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. DOD:15.12.2022 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- 2055/2022decided 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 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 Page 5 of 7 FA/51/2022 MR. ARVIND BANSAL VS. SAREGAMA MUSIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. DOD:15.12.2022 furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.

13. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the time for filing the appeal in the present case had expired on 03.03.2022. However, the Appellant has failed to file the Appeal within the stipulated time period. Also, no cogent reason has been explained by the appellant to show as to why his counsel was not aware about the pronouncement of the impugned order. The reason stated for the delay is that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was received by the Appellant on 24.02.2022 and counsel before the District Forum was different and counsel had Covid-19 like symptoms and was in quarantine for a week.

14. From the perusal of record, it is noticed that the impugned order was passed on 01.02.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order, the certified copy of impugned order is Annexure-1 from Page No. 26 to 30 of the appeal filed wherein the dispatch No. is 199-201 dated 18.02.2022. The name of the counsel who was quarantine for a week due to Covid-19 like symptoms has not been mentioned. It is nowhere mentioned that counsel had quarantine from which date and failed to file a medical certificate or a doctor's prescription for which period he was quarantined. Even the affidavit of the counsel who had been mentioned in Para No.4 of the application has not been filed.

15. Additionally, although if we exclude the time period during which the aforementioned certified copy was prepared by the District Forum and was dispatched to the Appellant, even then the appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within stipulated period.

FA/51/2022 MR. ARVIND BANSAL VS. SAREGAMA MUSIC INDUSTRIES & ANR. DOD:15.12.2022

16. 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.

17. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period shall also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.

18. File be consigned to record room.

Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) Pinki Member (Judicial) Pronounced on 15.12.2022.