State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kapil Mitra vs Citibank on 17 November, 2023
A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023
KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:14.12.2018
Date of Hearing :15.05.2023
Date of Decision :17.11.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 515/2018
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. KAPIL MITRA
2860, HAMILTON ROAD,
DELHI-110006
MOB.9999999271
EMAIL:[email protected]
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
CITIBANK
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
3RD FLOOR JEEVA BHARTI BUILDING
124, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110001
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Appellant in person.
Counsel for the Respondent.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 14.12.2018 challenging the impugned order dated 30.05.2018 vide which Complaint Case No.150/2013 was dismissed in default by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi), M-Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1108/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 166 days in filing the appeal, filed on 10.01.2019. Affidavit of the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.
ALLOWED Page 1 of 8A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023 KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK
3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved without any provision of law.
However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.150/2013.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.3 & 4 of the application read as under:
"3. That the District Forum did not send the copy of dismissal order to complainant and when on 22.11.2018 the appellant argued the matter in case titled "Sandeep Bareja vs. NDMC"
the misplaced file of the titled case was discovered tagged with the client's file. On the same date the appellant on enquiry from the District Forum-6 office got to know that the complaint was dismissed in default on 30.5.18. Immediately an application for grant of certified copy was moved, entered in diary, allowed by the member and was given to appellant.
4. That the file of the titled got misplaced / jumbled and the complainant / appellant could not attend certain dates and finally the matter was dismissed in default on 30.5.2018."
6. 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 twenty-five thousand, whichever is less]"
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of ALLOWED Page 2 of 8 A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023 KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK thirty days from the date of impugned order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 30.05.2018 and the present appeal was filed on 14.12.2018 i.e. after a delay of 168 days.
8. 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."ALLOWED Page 3 of 8
A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023 KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK
9. 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 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."
10. 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 ALLOWED Page 4 of 8 A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023 KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK 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.
11. 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.
12. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 30.05.2018 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 29.06.2018. However, the appellant has failed to file the present appeal within the stipulated period and the reason for delay stated in the application are that the impugned order came to the knowledge of the appellant only on 22.11.2018 when the appellant enquired from the learned District Commission got to know about status of the matter; thereafter appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned which was received on the same day.
13. In the present case, the Appellant has explained the delay caused in filing this appeal, in Para No. 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay. It has been stated by the appellant in application that certified copy of the impugned order dated 30.05.2018 was received by the appellant only on 22.11.2018.
14. As per the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 1246 of 2023 titled as Shashank Anil Singh vs. Star ALLOWED Page 5 of 8 A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023 KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK Health & Allied Insurance Company (Against the Order dated 20/04/2023 in Appeal No. 104/2023 of the State Commission Delhi), in Revision Petition No. 1360 of 2023 titled as Sudha Kapil & Anr. vs. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Against the Order dated 07/03/2023 in Appeal No. 9/2023 of the State Commission Delhi), in Revision Petition No. 1673 of 2023 titled as SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. vs. Anuj Kumar (Against the Order dated 13/02/2023 in Appeal No. A/1772/2016 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh), in Revision Petition No. 1705 of 2023 titled as M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs. Harpreet Kaur(Against the Order dated 10/07/2023 in Appeal No. A/249/2023 of the State Commission Delhi),in Revision Petition No. 1711 of 2023 titled as MMTC Ltd. vs. S.B. Mittal &Ors. (Against the Order dated 13/04/2023 in Appeal No. FA/72/2022 of the State Commission Delhi), it is mandatory to supply copy of the impugned order to the parties and the period taken in issuing certified copy of the order has to be excluded while computing limitation.
15. A perusal of the copy of the impugned order filed at page no. 2 along with the appeal shows that the certified copy of the impugned order was received on 22.11.2018.
16. Hence, if we calculate the period of limitation from 22.11.2018 i.e. the date when the impugned order came to the knowledge of the appellant and also received the certified copy of the same, the present appeal was filed on 14.12.2018 i.e. within a period of limitation. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and application bearing IA No.1108/2023 filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
17. A perusal of the record shows that reply to the appeal of Respondent is yet to be filed.
ALLOWED Page 6 of 8A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023 KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK
18. Respondent is directed to file reply to the appeal within four weeks from passing of this order with direction to supply advance copy of the same to the appellant.
19. Parties are also directed to file their short written submissions alongwith judgments, if any, being relied by them within four weeks and advance copies of the same be exchanged with each other.
20. List the matter on 29.01.2024.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) ALLOWED Page 7 of 8 A/515/2018 DOD:17.11.2023 KAPIL MITRA VS. CITIBANK 17.11.2023 A-515/2018 Vide separate detailed order, application bearing IA No.1108/2023 seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
A perusal of the record shows that reply to the appeal of the respondent is yet to be filed.
Respondent is directed to file reply to the appeal within four weeks from passing of this order with direction to supply advance copy of the same to the appellant/ counsel.
Parties are also directed to file their short written submissions alongwith judgments, if any, being relied by them within four weeks and advance copies of the same be exchanged with each other.
List the matter on 29.01.2024.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) ALLOWED Page 8 of 8