Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Lt Foods Limited vs Dhfl Pramerica Insurance Company ... on 25 July, 2023

FA/252/2023        LT FOODS LIMITED VS. DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. LTD.   DOD: 25.07.2023


          IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
                             COMMISSION

                                                 Date of Institution:02.06.2023
                                                 Date of hearing : 07.07.2023
                                                 Date of Decision : 25.07.2023

                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 252/2023

   IN THE MATTER OF

   LT FOODS LIMITED
   UNIT NO. 134, 1ST FLOOR
   RECTANGLE-1, D-SAKET DISTRICT CENTER
   SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017

   ALSO AT
   MVL-I PARK, 4TH FLOOR
   SECTOR-15, GURUGRAM-122001
   HARYANA
                                                         ...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
                                       VERSUS

   DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. LTD.
   4TH FLOOR,BUILDING NO. 9B, CYBER CITY
   DLF CITY PHASE-III
   GURGAON-122002, HARYANA

   UNION INSURANCE BROKING SERVICES PVT. LTD.
   705-711, 7TH FLOOR, JMD REGENT SQUARE TOWER
   M.G. ROAD, GURGAON-122002
   HARYANA

                                          ....NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS
   CORAM:
   HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
   HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

   Present:     Mr. R. Abhishek, counsel for the Appellant.

   PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

   1.

The present appeal has been filed on 02.06.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 vide which Complaint Case No.22/2021 was dismissed for non-prosecution by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II (South-II), Udyog DISMISSED Page 1 of 7 FA/252/2023 LT FOODS LIMITED VS. DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. LTD. DOD: 25.07.2023 Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1327/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Anu Sharma, authorized representative of the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.

3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

4. The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.22/2021.

5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.2 & 3 of the application read as under:

"2. It is submitted that the original Complaint No. 22 of 2021 was dismissed by the Hon'ble District Consumer Commission on 10th February 2023 (herein after referred to as "Impugned Order") on the grounds of non- prosecution. The Appellant thereafter filed a Review Application on 03.03.2023 seeking recall of the Impugned Order dated 10.02.2023. The said Application was summarily heard on 24.03.2023 and the Hon'ble Commission vide Order 12.04.2023 dismissed the said Application.

3. It is submitted that the Appellant exercised its rights as available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to recall the Impugned Order. Therefore, the APP has exhausted all its remedies before approaching this Hon'ble Commission. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Commission takes into consideration the bonafide steps taken by the Appellant before the institution of the present First Appeal."

6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as follows:-

FA/252/2023 LT FOODS LIMITED VS. DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. LTD. DOD: 25.07.2023

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 10.02.2023 and the present appeal was filed on 02.06.2023 i.e. after a delay of 67 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 follows:-

FA/252/2023 LT FOODS LIMITED VS. DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. LTD. DOD: 25.07.2023 "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 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."

FA/252/2023 LT FOODS LIMITED VS. DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. LTD. DOD: 25.07.2023

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 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 10.02.2023 and the period of DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 FA/252/2023 LT FOODS LIMITED VS. DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. LTD. DOD: 25.07.2023 limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 26.03.2023. The reason stated for the delay is that since the impugned order was passed vide which the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.02.2023, the appellant had filed a review application seeking recall of impugned order on 03.03.2023 which was also dismissed on 12.04.2023. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had not mentioned about how they had come to know about the impugned order. The appellant has preferred not to mention the date when they had applied for certified copy. The District Court vide order dated 12.04.2023 has dismissed the review application and aggrieved by impugned order dated 10.02.2023, the present appeal was filed on 02.06.2023. It is well settled law that time period spent by the party bonafidely before any forum stands excluded while computing the period of limitation. Therefore, the time period between 03.03.2023 to 12.04.2023 stands excluded while calculating the period of limitation in the present case. Thus, still the delay of 27 days has occurred in filing the appeal.

13. However, there are no cogent reasons given by the Appellant to explain as to why it did not take immediate steps even after receiving the certified copy of the impugned order. Further, no document and no specific dates have been furnished by the Appellant to prove the contention as averred in the application. The Appellant has failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused after the pronouncement of the impugned order.

14. 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 DISMISSED Page 6 of 7 FA/252/2023 LT FOODS LIMITED VS. DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. LTD. DOD: 25.07.2023 filed this appeal after immense delay without any reasonable ground.

15. 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.

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 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) Pronounced on 25.07.2023.