State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ranjana Verma vs P.P Estate & Ors. on 25 July, 2023
A/178/2023 DOD:25.07.2023
RANJANA VERMA VS. P.P. ESTATE & ORS.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution :27.04.2023
Date of Hearing :15.05.2023
Date of Decision :25.07.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 178/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
MS. RANJANA VERMA
W/O MR. PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA,
R/O H.NO. A-183, LAJPAT NAGAR,
GHAZIABAD-201005 [U.P.]
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
1.P.P. ESTATE, MGC HOMES & COLONIZER THROUGH ITS MANAGER G.T. ROAD, NH-91, OPP. AIR FORCE STATION DADRI DHOOM MANIKPUR, G.B. NAGAR, [U.P.]
2. MR. PURSHOTTAM AGGARWAL PURSHOTTAM INDUSTRIES LTD.
CITY TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, MALL ROAD NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE COMPLEX PITAMPURA, DELHI-110034
3. SARDAR GAGANDEEP SINGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF P.P. ESTATE, MGC HOMES & COLONIZER G.T. ROAD, NH-91, OPP. AIR FORCE STATION DADRI DHOOM MANIKPUR, G.B. NAGAR, [U.P.]
4. MR. ANIL NAGAR AUTHORIZED PERSON OF P.P. ESTATE, MGC HOMES & COLONIZER G.T. ROAD, NH-91, OPP. AIR FORCE STATION DADRI DHOOM MANIKPUR, G.B.NAGAR, [U.P.] DISMISSED Page 1 of 7 A/178/2023 DOD:25.07.2023 RANJANA VERMA VS. P.P. ESTATE & ORS.
5. SARDAR TEJENDER SINGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF P.P. ESTATE, MGC HOMES & COLONIZER G.T. ROAD, NH-91, OPP. AIR FORCE STATION DADRI DHOOM MANIKPUR, G.B.NAGAR, [U.P.] ....NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL) Present: Mr. Moti Prashad, counsel for the Appellant.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 27.04.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 vide which Complaint Case No.784/2022 was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (North- West), CSC, Block-C, Pocket-C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.956/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Prakash Chand Verma S/o late. Mr. Gajraj Singh, authorized representative of the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.
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 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No. 784/2022.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.2 of the application read as follow:
DISMISSED Page 2 of 7A/178/2023 DOD:25.07.2023 RANJANA VERMA VS. P.P. ESTATE & ORS.
"2. That it is submitted that the complainant had acute knee pain and visited doctors where she was advised knee replacement. She consulted another doctor on 06.03.2023 as she could not walk, hence she was advised to have rest unless surgery is conducted and finally she was admitted in Max hospital and permission was taken from higher authority on 10.04.2023 and finally admitted on 14 th April 2023 in Max Hospital Patparganj."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-
"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 per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed"
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 16.02.2023 and the present appeal was filed on 27.04.2023 i.e. after a delay of 25 days.
DISMISSED Page 3 of 7A/178/2023 DOD:25.07.2023 RANJANA VERMA VS. P.P. ESTATE & ORS.
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:-
DISMISSED Page 4 of 7A/178/2023 DOD:25.07.2023 RANJANA VERMA VS. P.P. ESTATE & ORS.
"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
A/178/2023 DOD:25.07.2023 RANJANA VERMA VS. P.P. ESTATE & ORS.
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 16.02.2023 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 02.04.2023. 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 appellant was advised knee replacement on 06.03.2023 and was admitted in Max Hospital on 14.04.2023 for surgery which caused delay of 29 days in filing the appeal.
13. A perusal of record before us, discharge summary dated 19.04.2023 filed alongwith appeal reveals that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 14.04.2023 and discharged on 19.04.2023. The limitation period has expired on 02.04.2023 prior to 14.04.2023 when the appellant was admitted in hospital. Even, if we exclude the period of limitation from 14.04.2023 to 19.04.2023, when the appellant was admitted in the hospital for knee surgery, there is a delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal which has to be explained by the appellant.
14. However, the appellant has failed to explain 19 days delay to be condoned in filing the present appeal or as to why she did not take immediate steps even after receiving the copy of the order. The Appellant has failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused.DISMISSED Page 6 of 7
A/178/2023 DOD:25.07.2023 RANJANA VERMA VS. P.P. ESTATE & ORS.
15. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in paras 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 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 25.07.2023 DISMISSED Page 7 of 7