State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. vs Mr. Nikhil Jain on 27 May, 2024
A/45/2024 DOD:27.05.2024
MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. NIKHIL JAIN
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:24.11.2024
Date of Hearing :10.05.2024
Date of Decision :27.05.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 45/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
MAKEMY TRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE,
19TH FLOOR, EPITOME BUILDING NO.5,
DLF CYBER CITY, DLF PHASE-III,
GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122002
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
(Through Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate,
Mob.:9467194681 &
Email: [email protected])
VERSUS
MR. NIKHIL JAIN,
R/O R-25, SOUTH EXTENSION PART-2,
NEW DELHI-110049
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Harsh Vardhan, counsel for the appellant.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 23.01.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 vide which Complaint Case No.264/2016 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi), M-Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 6 A/45/2024 DOD:27.05.2024
MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. NIKHIL JAIN
2. Additional affidavit of Mr. S. Sreesh, authorized signatory of the appellant has been filed on 28.02.2024 vide diary No.2574 wherein the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.264/2016.
5. Para No.3 to 5 of the additional affidavit filed by the appellant read as under:
"3. I say that the Appellant has received the free copy of the Impugned order dated 16.09.2023, on 01.11.2023. I say that the matter before the Ld. District Commission was reserved for orders on 22.08.2023.
4. I say that till 01.11.2023, the Appellant has no knowledge of the passing of the impugned order. I say that only when the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant enquired from the registry of the LD. District Commission, about the status of the order on 01.11.2023, the registry has informed about the passing of the impugned Order on 26.09.2023. I further say that the registry has also, informed that the said free copy of the Impugned order was dispatched to the Appellant however, the same was returned. I say that on 01.11.2023, the free copy of the Impugned Order was handed to the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant on 01.11.2023.
5. I say that the Appellant without any delay has filed the present Appeal within the limitation period of 30 days i.e. on 24.11.2023 itself on the Edaakhil portal of this Hon'ble Commission."
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 ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 6 A/45/2024 DOD:27.05.2024 MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. NIKHIL JAIN 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 twenty- five thousand rupees, 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 thirty days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 26.09.2023 and the present appeal was filed on 24.11.2023 i.e. after a delay of 29 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 ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 6 A/45/2024 DOD:27.05.2024 MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. NIKHIL JAIN 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 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 ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 6 A/45/2024 DOD:27.05.2024 MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. NIKHIL JAIN 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 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 26.09.2023 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 26.10.2023. However, the appellant has failed to file the present appeal within the stipulated period. The reason for delay stated in the application that free copy of the impugned order was handed over to the counsel for the appellant on 01.11.2023 and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 24.11.2023 through Edaakhil Portal of this Commission.
ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 6 A/45/2024 DOD:27.05.2024
MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. NIKHIL JAIN
13. In the present case, appellant has also filed copy of e-filing proof alongwith additional affidavit of the appellant.
14. A perusal of the record shows that the present appeal was filed on 24.11.2023 vide application No.A23110012258 through E-filing well within the limitation period.
15. Therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal. Additional affidavit of the appellant filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
16. A perusal of the record shows that Respondent is yet to be served.
17. Issue notice of the appeal to the Respondent through registered post and speed post. The Appellant /counsel may also send notice to the Respondent via Whatsapp and E-mail. This is in addition to the already existing modes of service in order to ensure an expeditious process.
18. Notice be given dasti to the Appellant /counsel. The Appellant /counsel shall thereafter, file an affidavit stating that the service has been affected on the Respondent.
19. List the matter on 13.09.2024.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 27.05.2024 ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 6