State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mausam vs Dhfl Pramerica Group & Ors. on 7 June, 2024
FA/210/2024 MRS. MAUSAM VS. DHFL PRAMERICA GROUP CREDIT LIFE & ANR. DOD: 07.06.2024
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:28.03.2024
Date of hearing : 31.05.2024
Date of Decision : 07.06.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 210/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
MRS. MAUSAM
W/O MR. NIRAJ KUMAR
R/O WB-38, 2ND FLOOR
LANE NO.2, KRISHNA MANDIR
SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI-110092
(Through Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate
Mob. 8130738555)
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
1.DHFL PRAMERICA GROUP CREDIT LIFE THROUGH ITS MANAGER OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR BUILDING NO.9B CYBER CITY DLF PHASE III, GUGAON 12202 EMAIL: [email protected]
2. DHFL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LTD.
(NOW PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LTD.) THROUGH ITS MANAGER OFFICT AT: PLOT NO.12, BLOCK NO.11 2ND FLOOR, SECTOR-I, NOIDA GAUTAMBUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PARDESH-201301 ....NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL) Present: Mr. Deepak Verma, counsel for appellant appeared on VC.
None for respondent.ALLOWED Page 1 of 7
FA/210/2024 MRS. MAUSAM VS. DHFL PRAMERICA GROUP CREDIT LIFE & ANR. DOD: 07.06.2024 PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 28.03.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 03.01.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.267/2023 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- IX (East District), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092 wherein the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1623/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed vide diary no.
7615 dated 27.05.2024. Affidavit of the appellant has been filed along with this application.
3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.267/2023.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 4 to 9 of the application read as under:
"4. That the appellant/complaint has filed the application for certified copy of order dated 03.01.2024 on dated 01.02.2024 before the district commission.
5. That on dated 07.02.2024, mother in law of the appellant/complainant have gone abode and she is only lady in her house to handling all the things and circumstances,
6. That the complainant has engaged her new counsel for handling the matter and collected the certified copy by her counsel on dated 12.02.2024.
7. That the counsel for the appellant has filed an application for restoration the appellant/complainant before the district commission on dated 16.02.2024 and same was listed before the commission on 04.03.2024.ALLOWED Page 2 of 7
FA/210/2024 MRS. MAUSAM VS. DHFL PRAMERICA GROUP CREDIT LIFE & ANR. DOD: 07.06.2024
8. That on 04.03.2024 the application was dismissed as withdrawn as the Hon'ble district commission has no power to recall its own order. Order dated 04.3.2024 already on record.
9. That the counsel for the appellant has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Commission on dated 28.03.2024."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-
41. "Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five 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 forty-five 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 Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty percent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:
Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of forty five days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 03.01.2024 and the present appeal was filed on 28.03.2024 i.e. after a delay of 40 days.ALLOWED Page 3 of 7
FA/210/2024 MRS. MAUSAM VS. DHFL PRAMERICA GROUP CREDIT LIFE & ANR. DOD: 07.06.2024
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."
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 ALLOWED Page 4 of 7 FA/210/2024 MRS. MAUSAM VS. DHFL PRAMERICA GROUP CREDIT LIFE & ANR. DOD: 07.06.2024 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 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 ALLOWED Page 5 of 7 FA/210/2024 MRS. MAUSAM VS. DHFL PRAMERICA GROUP CREDIT LIFE & ANR. DOD: 07.06.2024 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 03.01.2024 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 17.02.2024. However, the reasons stated for the delay are that that appellant applied on 01.02.2024 for certified copy of impugned order; mother-in-law of the appellant has gone abode and the appellant is only lady in her house to handling all the things and circumstances; the appellant engaged new counsel for handling the matter and collected the certified copy of impugned order on 12.02.2024; counsel for the appellant filed an application for restoration on 16.02.2024 and same was listed before the District Commission on 04.03.2024 which was dismissed on the same date as the District Commission has no power to recall its own order; and counsel for the appellant filed the present appeal on 28.03.2024.
13. It is admitted fact that the appellant has filed for certified copy of impugned order on 01.02.2024 which was received on 12.02.2024.
14. As per the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 1246 of 2023 titled as Shashank Anil Singh vs. Star 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 SudhaKapil&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. HarpreetKaur(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 ALLOWED Page 6 of 7 FA/210/2024 MRS. MAUSAM VS. DHFL PRAMERICA GROUP CREDIT LIFE & ANR. DOD: 07.06.2024 No. FA/72/2022 of the State Commission Delhi), it is mandatory to supply free 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. As per the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble NCDRC, it is mandatory to supply free 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.
16. Hence, if we calculate the period of limitation from 12.02.2024 i.e. the date when the certified copy of impugned order received by the appellant, the present appeal was filed on 28.03.2024 i.e. within the period of limitation.
17. Issue notice of the appeal to the respondents through registered post and speed post. A copy of appeal be also sent along with notice.
18. The appellant/counsel may also send notice to the respondents via Whatsapp and E-mail. This is in addition to the already existing modes of service in order to ensure an expeditious process.
19. Learned Counsel for the appellant is directed to file an affidavit affirming the email address & whatsapp no. of respondents under Rule 12 of the Delhi Courts Service of Processes by Courier, Fax and Electronic Mail Service (Civil Proceedings), Rules 2010
20. Notice be given dasti to the appellant/counsel. The appellant/counsel shall thereafter, file an affidavit stating that the service has been effected on the respondents.
21. List the matter on 24.09.2024.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced on 07.06.2024.
ALLOWED Page 7 of 7