State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Royal Enfield(A Unit Of Eicher Motors ... vs Harmohan Singh & Ors. on 3 July, 2023
FA/212/2023 ROYAL ENFILED & ANR VS. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS. DOD: 03.07.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:19.05.2023
Date of hearing : 30.05.2023
Date of Decision : 03.07.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 212/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
ROYAL ENFILED
(A UNIT OF EICHER MOTORS LIMITED)
3RD FLOOR, SELECT CITYWALK
A-3, DISTRICT CENTRE
SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
Mr. HARMOHAN SINGH
A-231, DDA COLONY
CHAUKHANDI, TILAK NAGAR
NEW DELHI-110018
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT NO.1
LAMBA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
WZ-1, NIRANKARI TOWER
GANESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110058
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT NO.2
LAMBA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
(SERVICE CENTRE)
9, INDUSTRAL AREA TILAK NAGAR
BEHIND SUBHASH NAGAR
METRO STATION GATE NO.2
NEW DELHI-110018
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT NO.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
DISMISSED Page 1 of 7
FA/212/2023 ROYAL ENFILED & ANR VS. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS. DOD: 03.07.2023
Present: Ms. Diva Arora alongwith Mr. Rishay Raj, Counsel for the
Appellant.
None for the Respondents.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 19.05.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 vide which Complaint Case No.42/2017 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III (West), C-150-151, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1163/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Satik Mahapatra, Authorized Signatory of the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.
3. 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.42/2017.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.2 to Para No.5 of the application read as under:
"2. It is submitted that the Appellant in this matter has not been able to contest the investigation application as the same was brought to the notice of the Appellant at a belated stage without the copy of the application. Copy of the application for investigation was necessary for the appellant to brief its staff who is going to attend the investigation. Ld. District Forum has placed heavy reliance on the said investigation application to form its opinion about the defects which was all rectifiable issue and in no way pointed to the defects in the vehicle. This has caused great prejudice to the Appellant.DISMISSED Page 2 of 7
FA/212/2023 ROYAL ENFILED & ANR VS. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS. DOD: 03.07.2023
3. That the Appellant is filing this appeal after due consultations to determine the merit of the appeal. This process also took some time and the same was necessary for the appellant to determine the merits of filing the present appeal.
4. It is submitted that the delay in filing the Appeal was further caused in obtaining certain material information and documents which are crucial and necessary for adjudication of the present dispute, several of which have not been disclosed by the Complainant herein. That a significant amount of time was spent by the Appellant in collecting, collating, and analyzing the said documents, which have only now been placed on record by Appellant in this appeal. Further the appeal and the DD for submitting the 50% of the penalty amount has to be sent to the local counsel through post for filing of appeal which also took time.
5. Thus, a delay of 94 days has been caused in filing this Appeal by Appellant, as filing of these information and documents was necessary to place on record the correct facts and circumstances of the matter."
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 thirty-five thousand, whichever is less]"DISMISSED Page 3 of 7
FA/212/2023 ROYAL ENFILED & ANR VS. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS. DOD: 03.07.2023
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 16.01.2023 and the present appeal was filed on 19.05.2023 i.e. after a delay of 93 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."DISMISSED Page 4 of 7
FA/212/2023 ROYAL ENFILED & ANR VS. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS. DOD: 03.07.2023
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 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.DISMISSED Page 5 of 7
FA/212/2023 ROYAL ENFILED & ANR VS. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS. DOD: 03.07.2023
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 16.01.2023 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 15.02.2023. However, the reason stated for the delay that significant amount of time was spent by the appellant in collecting and analyzing the documents and the demand draft for submitting 50% of penalty amount sent to counsel through post, seems fictitious. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had not mentioned about how they had come to know about the impugned order. Further, the appellant has preferred not to mention the date when they had applied for certified copy.
13. In order to condone the delay, the appellant has to satisfy the Commission for delay of each day. However, the appellant has failed to show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. The applicant has abused the process of law and filed this appeal after immense delay without any reasonable ground.
14. As per the averments made in the application as well as the record, we are of the considered view that no cogent reason has been explained by the appellant to show the delay in filing the appeal.
15. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicant/appellant has failed to DISMISSED Page 6 of 7 FA/212/2023 ROYAL ENFILED & ANR VS. BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS. DOD: 03.07.2023 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.
16. 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.
17. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced on 03.07.2023.
DISMISSED Page 7 of 7