State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pawan Kumar vs M/S Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd on 2 May, 2023
FA-191/2022 DOD: 02.05.2023
PAWAN KUMAR VS M/S ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.10.2022
DATE OF HEARING: 10.03.2023
DATE OF DECISION: 02.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 191/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. PAWAN KUMAR
S/O LATE MR. PAHLAD RAI GUPTA
R/O 8660/ 14B SHIDDIPURA
KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110035
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD.
OFFICE AT 112, ANSAL BHAWAN
16, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS/COMPANY
SECRETARY/AUTHORIZES REPRESENTATIVE ETC.
....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
Mr. Aditya Sharma, counsel for the Respondent.
PER :MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
ORDER
1. The present appeal has been filed on 20.10.2022, challenging the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 vide which Complaint Case No.230/2011 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes DISMISSED Page 1 of 7 FA-191/2022 DOD: 02.05.2023 PAWAN KUMAR VS M/S ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi District), M-Block, First Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I. P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
2. After filing this appeal, an application bearing IA No.1694/2022 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been filed on 18.11.2022 vide diary No. 9187. This application is not supported by an affidavit of the appellant.
3. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1694/2022 seeking condonation of delay of one day in filing the appeal.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that this application has been moved without mentioning any provision of law, however, it is being considered under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No. 230/2011.
5. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
6. The applicant/appellant has prayed for condonation of delay on the ground that the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 was dispatched by the learned District Forum on 20.09.2022 vide dispatched No. DF/ND/2022/500-501/DP-350917 which was received by the appellant on dated 25.09.2022.
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, DISMISSED Page 2 of 7 FA-191/2022 DOD: 02.05.2023 PAWAN KUMAR VS M/S ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD 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 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 order/judgment was pronounced on 19.07.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 20.10.2022 after delay of 63 (sixty three) days.
9. In order to condone the delay of sixty three 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 DISMISSED Page 3 of 7 FA-191/2022 DOD: 02.05.2023 PAWAN KUMAR VS M/S ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD 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.reportedinIV(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."
11. 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 follows: -
"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial DISMISSED Page 4 of 7 FA-191/2022 DOD: 02.05.2023 PAWAN KUMAR VS M/S ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD 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 furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
13. Reverting back to the material available on record, we find that the impugned order was passed on 19.07.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 FA-191/2022 DOD: 02.05.2023 PAWAN KUMAR VS M/S ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD 18.08.2022. However, the Appellant has failed to file the present appeal within stipulated period and the reason stated for the delay is that the copy of the impugned order/ judgment was dispatched by the District Forum on 20.09.2022 vide Dispatched No. DF/ND/2022/501-201/DP-350917 which was received by the appellant on 25.09.2022. Due to the aforesaid reason, the delay has been occurred in filing the appeal.
14. It is pertinent to mention that vide Order No. F.1/SCDRC/Admn/Cert.FreeCopy/2022/375-78 dated 25.04.2022 issued by this Commission, it was directed to all the District Commissions to issue the first free copy of order to the Advocates/Litigants only after an application is filed by the Advocates/Litigants in the Registry. Regulation 21 (3) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2020 reads that a certified copy of an order shall clearly specify the date when free copy was issued, date of the application, date when the copy was made ready and the date when it was delivered to the Advocate/litigants.
15. Therefore, averment of the appellant that the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 was dispatched to the appellant on 20.09.2022 which was received by the appellant on 25.09.2022, does not cover limitation period of the appeal. Hence, it is for the appellant to explain when the impugned order was passed on 19.07.2022, why the appellant has not applied for the certified copy just after the impugned order was passed.
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 DISMISSED Page 6 of 7 FA-191/2022 DOD: 02.05.2023 PAWAN KUMAR VS M/S ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
17. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period 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) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced on 02.05.2023 DISMISSED Page 7 of 7