State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jatin Kumar vs Veera Enterprises & Ors. on 23 August, 2023
FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:07.06.2023
Date of hearing : 12.07.2023
Date of Decision : 23.08.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 265/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. JATIN KUMAR
S/O MR. RAVENDRA KUMAR
R/O D-1/544, GALI NO.11
HARSH VIHAR, DELH-110093
THROUGH SPA HOLDER
MR. RAVENDRA KUMAR
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
1.VEERA ENTERPRISES COMPUTER SHOP AT: 38, VASANT COMPLEX SHAKARPUR, DELH-110092
2. HP LAPTOP CARE AND SERVICE CALL REPORT CENTER AT: 48, SECOND FLOOR OPPOSITE HEERA SWEETS VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR, DELH-110092
3. THROUGH DIRETOR/S HEAD OFFICE OF HP LAPTOP HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBEL SOFT PVT. LTD.
EC2 CAMPUS, HP AVENUE SURVEY NO.39 (PART), ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-2ND HASUR ROAD, BANGLORE-560100 ....NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present: None for the parties.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ALLOWED Page 1 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023
1. The present appeal has been filed on 07.06.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 vide which Complaint Case No.180/2022 against OP No.1 was dismissed and OP No.2 & OP No.4 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- IX (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1363/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Ravendra Kumar, father/SPA holder of the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.
3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved without mentioning 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.180/2022.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.2 of the application reads as under:
"2. That the appellant/complainant could not file the appeal within prescribed period as the Ld. President of Hon'ble CDRF, has passed the impugned order dated 12/04/2023, signed the same order on dated 04/05/2023 and the appellant/complainant has received the copy of the impugned order on dated 08/05/2023 as a result of which the result of which the present appeal could not be prepared within period of Limitation, hence the present application for seeking condonation of delay in filling the appeal within time due to aforesaid bonafide reasons,"
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-
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:ALLOWED Page 2 of 19
FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 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 12.04.2023 and the present appeal was filed on 07.06.2023 i.e. after a delay of 11 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 ALLOWED Page 3 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 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."
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 ALLOWED Page 4 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 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 12.04.2023 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 12.05.2023. However, the reason stated for the delay that the appellant has received copy of impugned order on 08.05.2023. A perusal of record shows that the free certified copy of impugned order was dispatched vide diary no. 8131-135 dated 04.05.2023. The appellant has not mentioned the specific date when he had applied for certified copy of impugned order. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has also not mentioned about how he had come to know about the impugned order.
13. We deem it appropriate to refer to judgment dated 31.05.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1376 of 2023 titled as Orchid Travel and Tours ALLOWED Page 5 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 vs. Kamini Chauchan & 2 Ors. (Against the Order dated 26/04/2023 in Appeal No. 177/2022 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"Learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed an Affidavit stating that the objection raised regarding the e-dakhil portal has been removed. Ms.Shivi from the Registry submitted that by mistake the objection regarding e-dakhil was mentioned. She has submitted her apology, the same is accepted.
2. The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 26.04.2023 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 177 of 2022 of the present Petitioner. The Appeal had been filed against the order dated 06.05.2022 in Complaint No. 389 of 2018, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East District (for short "the District Commission") had allowed the Complaint of the Respondents.
3. Since the said Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner with delay, an Application (IA/1396/2022) was moved seeking condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the Appeal. The State Commission heard the arguments of the Parties on this Application and dismissed the Application on the ground that no reasonable grounds for condoning the delay has been shown and it is also recorded that on calculation the delay comes to 128 days and not 117 days as mentioned in the Application.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the delay had occurred due to delay in getting the certified copy and thereafter inability of the Petitioner to trace the case file on account of the closure of the branch office and its shifting due to Covid Pandemic. On its inability to trace the file in July, 2022 the counsel, who had moved an Application seeking condonation of delay, was contacted and again the efforts on his advice were made to trace the file but the file could not be traced. Thereafter, an Application for certified copies of the entire paper book was moved on 22.08.2022 before the District Commission but the certified copies were not given to him by the District Commission due to crunch in staff and other related issues. Thereafter, the counsel applied for the inspection of the file on 09.09.2022, which was made available on 16.09.2022. After inspection of the file the Registry on the request of the counsel provided the certified copy of the paper book on 16.09.2022. Then the Appeal was prepared. The FDRs towards mandatory/ statutory deposits were issued only on 26.09.2022 and ALLOWED Page 6 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 when the FDRs were deposited with the Registry, it was noticed that it had been wrongly issued and therefore was not accepted by the Registry. The FDRs were thereafter, corrected and were received by the counsel on 10.10.2022. Finally, the Appeal was filed on 11.10.2022. It is submitted that these are the reasonable grounds and due to these reasons the Appeal could not be filed within limitation period.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the State Commission has erred in not considering these reasons as sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.
6. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file.
7. In para 2 of the Application (IA/1396/2022) as reproduced in the impugned order, the Petitioner has admitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Commission was delivered to the Appellant on 06.05.2022. This clearly shows that on that day itself the Petitioner was aware of the passing of the judgment. Even otherwise it is admitted in the same para that the Appellant had received the copy of the judgment on 17.05.2022. The period of limitation had therefore started running from that date itself. It was expected from the Appellant to file its Appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order. The reasons for its inability to file the Appeal within limitation, relates to their internal reasons like, inability to trace the file and thereafter preparing FDRs in wrong name, etc.
8. Learned State Commission has relied on the findings of the Apex Court in Basawaraj andOrs. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746, wherein the expression of sufficient cause has been defined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the sufficient cause does not include the negligent manner in which the Applicant had acted or/and want of bona fide. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that party, if not acted diligently or remains inactive, it cannot be considered sufficient ground enabling the court to exercise discretion in favour of such a party.
9. It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The person who has come up with the request for condonation of delay needs to explain delay of each and every day and has to show that there was some reasonable ground for him not to come to the court within the period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361" has held as under:ALLOWED Page 7 of 19
FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 "12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."
10. The law also requires the Applicant to act with reasonable diligence as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"5. We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."
11. The reasonable reason must be of such nature which prevented him from coming to the court and which was not in his control. In the case of "AnshulAggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578," the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind. The Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the 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 this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora. .........."ALLOWED Page 8 of 19
FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023
14. We further deem it appropriate to refer the following recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission:-
I. Judgment dated 16.06.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1246 of 2023 titled as Shashank Anil Singh vs. Star Health & Allied Insurance Company (Against the Order dated 20/04/2023 in Appeal No. 104/2023 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"1. Heard Mr. Shashank Anil Singh, the petitioner in person.
2. The above revision has been filed against the Order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 20.04.2023 dismissing the FA No. 104 of 2023 as time-barred in as much as the delay condonation application has been rejected. Petitioner pointed that impugned Order was passed on 20.01.2023 and free copy has been supplied on 24.01.2023. The period of 45 days from supply of the free copy expired on 10.03.2023 while the appeal was filed on 10.03.2023 there was no delay at all. The State Commission wrongly dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
3. A perusal of the Order of State Commission shows that the State Commission has counted limitation from the date of pronouncing the judgement dated 20.01.2023 while under section 12 of the Limitation Act the period in obtaining the certified copy has to be excluded and, therefore, the order of State Commission suffers from error apparent on the face of record. It is liable to be set aside. The revision is allowed. The Order of State Commission dated 20.04.2023 passed in FA No. 104 of 2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to State Commission who shall admit the appeal and proceed to decide the same on merits in accordance with law after giving notice to the other side.
4. The principal onus of informing the respondent of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. He shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.
However, if for whatever reason, the respondent does not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring its presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a ALLOWED Page 9 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 situation may also require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondent. In case the respondent has objection, it may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that it will raise its objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondent may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise its objection.
5. If the respondent move appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondent does not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law."
II. Judgment dated 17.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1360 of 2023 titled as Sudha Kapil & Anr. vs. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Against the Order dated 07/03/2023 in Appeal No. 9/2023 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"1. This revision petition has been filed under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 07.03.2023 of the State Commission in appeal no. 09 of 2023 arising out of the Order dated 11.11.2022 of the District Commission in complaint no. 284 of 2020.
2. It appears that the earlier second appeal no. 20 of 2023 was filed by the revisionists (the 'complainants') and the following Order dated 03.05.2023 was passed by this Commission therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said Order are reproduced below for reference:
1. This second appeal no. 20 of 2023 has been filed under Section 51(2) of the Act 2019 apropos the State Commission's Order dated 07.03.2023 in first appeal no. 09 of 2023 arising out of the District Commission's Order dated 11.11.2022 in complaint no. 284 of 2020.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants (the 'complainants') submits that the complainants are aggrieved with the impugned Order of 07.03.2023 since not only has the State ALLOWED Page 10 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 Commission erred in calculating the period of delay in filing first appeal before it but has also erred in holding that sufficient cause to condone the delay was not forthcoming.
Submission is that the State Commission has committed jurisdictional error and acted with material irregularity. Learned counsel further submits that the complainants wish to withdraw their present second appeal and in its stead want to file revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019.
3. In the wake of the above submissions the second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the complainants to file revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists (the 'complainants'). Perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 11.11.2022 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 07.03.2023 of the State Commission and the petition.
4. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 07.03.2023 dismissed the appeal of the complainants being barred by limitation with the observations which read as follows:
Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicants/appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainants is that the State Commission has committed a gross error in calculating the period of limitation while dismissing the appeal of the complainants vide its Order dated 07.03.2023 and has completely missed to advert to or attribute any significance to the date when the free certified copy of the impugned Order was provided to the complainants. The contention is that the State Commission has only taken into account the date of Order i.e. 11.11.2022, when the District Commission passed its Order and not the date when the free certified copy of the impugned Order was supplied to the complainants as per rules and regulations but which was of crucial relevance. The submission is that on that reckoning, the complainants had filed the appeal in the State Commission well within the limitation period as prescribed by the law. It has also been submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has also adverted to this aspect in a different matter and has taken a view which favours the contention of the ALLOWED Page 11 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 complainants. Learned counsel relied upon the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Housing Board, Haryana vs. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association &Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 672. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Bench to observations made in the afore said decision whereby the need, the significance and the crucial relevance of the time when the free copy of the Order is provided to the party has been expatiated upon for the purpose of counting the period of limitation. The aforesaid decision was also quoted and referred to in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission this aspect, which focused on the date of supply of the free certified copy of the impugned order to the complainants has completely been ignored and the State Commission has glossed over this germane legal aspect to the utter detriment of the complainants.
6. It has been further pointed out that even though the contents of the application seeking condonation of delay have been referred to in the impugned Order, despite that there is absolutely no discussion or views expressed with regard to aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which was relied upon by the appellant. Further submission is that even otherwise, in the circumstances of the case it is very much clear that the said presumed delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission was also so insignificantly small that in all fairness in order to meet the ends of justice and not to leave the complainants remediless, the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay as there was convincing explanation for the alleged delay which constituted sufficient case to condone the same. The submission is that the facts and circumstances of the case are such that no negligent conduct or deliberate intention on the part of the complainants to delay the filing of appeal could be adversely inferred or evinced out.
7. The Bench has perused the record, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainants.
It may be useful to quote some relevant paragraphs of the application moved before State Commission seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal which read as follows:
2. That the above-caption Appeal was listed before this Hon'ble Commission on 17.01.2023 wherein this Hon'ble Commission was prima facie of the opinion that the appeal is time barred, hence the Appellants shall file the ALLOWED Page 12 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. That without prejudice to the rights of the Appellants the present application for condonation of delay is being fled only in compliance of the directions given by this Hon'ble Commission. It is hereby pertinent to mention that the filing of the present application does not in any manner amounts to admission on part of the Appellants with respect to any delay in filing the captioned appeal.
4. That it is outrightly and humbly submitted that there is no delay in filing of the present appeal against the final order / judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, District-South West, Dwarka, Delhi in case bearing CC No. 284 of 2022.
5. That the Appellants had not received the free copy of final Order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, District-
South West, Dwarka, Delhi in case bearing CC No. 284 of 2020, in compliance of Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, nor had any information whatsoever as regard passing of the impugned order dated 11.11.2020.
6. That on 29.11.2022, the Counsel appearing for the Appellant before the Ld. DCDRC, went to the Ld. DCDRC- VII, District-South West, Dwarka to enquire about the status of the judgement, if any passed in the mater which was pending before the Ld. DCDRC, to which it came to his knowledge that the final order in the matter has already been passed and the first / free copy of the impugned Order was provided to the said counsel on te same day i.e. on 29.11.2022. The copy of the impugned Order which is attached to the appeal is the same first / free copy of the Order which the Appellants have right to receive in accordance with the aforesaid regulations, which was handed over Dasti to the said counsel by the registry of the Ld. DCDRC.
7. That it is submitted that the though the impugned Order in the captioned appeal is passed on 11.11.2022 but the limitation for filing the captioned appeal commences / runs / reckons from the date of receiving of the free copy of the Order and not from the date of the order and not even from the date of pronouncement of the order. It is submitted that ALLOWED Page 13 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 since the Ld. DCDRC's impugned order first / free certified copy to be provided to the parties was itself provided to the complainant therein / appellant herein on 29.11.2022, therefore, period of limitation of 45 days as prescribed in Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 shall commence from the said date only. The said view has already been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Housing Board, Haryana Vs. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association &Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 672.
8. That on computing the limitation period of 45 days from 29.11.2022, the limitation would end / expire on 13.01.2023 whereas the captioned appeal was filed on 09.01.2023 i.e., within the limitation period. Therefore, there is no delay in filing the captioned appeal, but still the present application is being filed by the appellant in compliance of the order dated 17.01.2023 and as a matter of abundant precaution.
9. That it is humbly submitted that although there is no delay in filing the captioned appeal but if this Hon'ble Commission is of the view that there is any delay then the delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice for the reasons already mentioned above particularly in view of the fact that passing of the judgement / final order by the Ld. DCDRC / impugned order challenged herein, was not in the knowledge of the appellant.
10. That this present Application is bona fide and in the interest of justice.
8. A perusal of the impugned Order dated 07.03.2023 of the State Commission shows that the aforesaid aspect of the matter which has been emphasized by the learned counsel for the complainants and which relates to commencement and counting of the period of limitation and the views expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Housing Board, Haryana (supra) and the observations made therein in this regard have completely escaped the attention of the State Commission. There is hardly any observation made regarding the same in its impugned Order. If the State Commission found the aforesaid case distinguishable, it could have very well given its reasons in this regard. But nothing of that sort has been done. It is difficult to speculate what view would have been taken by the fora below had it considered the aforesaid aspect. The Bench is of the considered view that the present matter ought to be remanded back to the State Commission to reconsider the same afresh and to arrive at its findings in that ALLOWED Page 14 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 perspective afresh. While reconsidering the matter the State Commission would also do well to keep in perspective the fact that in this case the complainants have pleaded to have acquired the knowledge of the Order on the same date when its free copy had been supplied to them, and not before it. This is not a case in which there is any material to convincingly show or demonstrate that even before this supply of free certified copy, the complainants had acquired the knowledge of the Order and then negligently or deliberately or intentionally did not bother to receive or obtain its copy. Beside that it may be further observed that even the view taken by the State Commission regarding the sufficiency or insufficiency of cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal also appears to be a little harsh, if not inclement, leaving the complainants remediless. The doors of justice could better have been kept ajar in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
9. Sequel to the above the impugned Order dated 07.03.2019 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the State Commission with the request that it may decide the matter in issue afresh in view of the observations made herein above and proceed further as per the law.
...."
III. Judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1673 of 2023 titled as SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. vs. Anuj Kumar (Against the Order dated 13/02/2023 in Appeal No. A/1772/2016 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"The office has submitted report that there is delay of 24 days in filing the revision. The petitioner has filed IA/8789/2023 for condoning the delay. The impugned order was passed on 13.02.2023. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on 15.06.2023 which was issued on the same day and the revision petition was filed through e-filing on 22.06.2023. Subject to objection of the other side, delay in filing the revision is condoned. Above revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 13.02.2023 dismissing appeal no. 1772/2016 as time barred.ALLOWED Page 15 of 19
FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 Order of the District Forum was passed on 28.05.2016 and certified copy of the order was issued on 24.08.2016. The appeal was filed on 08.09.2016. The State Commission in the impugned order, found that since the order of District Forum had passed in presence of the parties therefore, they had no justification for not obtaining its copy prior to 24.08.2016. Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 mandates for supply of free copy of the order. Under Section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1963, the period taken in issuing certified copy of the order has to be excluded, while computing limitation.
A perusal of the photostate copy of the certified copy of the order dated 28.05.2016 shows that free copy was issued only on 24.08.2016 and the appeal was filed on 08.09.2016. It was well within limitation. The State Commission was not justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred.
ORDER In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Order dated 13.02.2023 dismissing appeal no. 1772 of 2016 is set aside. The appeal is treated as filed within time. The State Commission is directed to decide the case on merits in accordance with law."
IV. Judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1705 of 2023 titled as M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs. Harpreet Kaur (Against the Order dated 10/07/2023 in Appeal No. A/249/2023 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"Above revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 13.04.2023 and the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 10.07.2023 whereby the appeal has been dismissed as time barred. Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the illegality of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission only. In the present case, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint by the order dated 11.04.2022. Thereafter, review application ALLOWED Page 16 of 19 FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023 was allowed on 18.10.2022 and thereafter, the complaint was decided by the order dated 13.04.2023. The appellant filed the present appeal before the State Commission against the order dated 13.04.2023 on 01.06.2023 along with IA/1311/2023 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the condonation of delay application, it has been stated that the free copy was not received to the appellant. The appellant only received copy when the counsel for the complainant sent its copy on 25.04.2023. Thereafter, the appellant applied for issue of certified copy on 25.05.2023 and it was received on the same day and the appeal was filed on 01.06.2023. It was within 45 days from the knowledge of the order. Therefore, the delay ought to have been condoned but the condonation of delay has been rejected and the appeal has been dismissed as time barred.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has relied upon the dispatch no.
DCDRC/ND/463-64 by which free copy was dispatched to the parties but the State Commission has failed to note that the address of the appellant was not correctly mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the free copy was not received by the appellant as stated by the appellant. In these circumstances, disbelieving the version of the petitioner only without examining whether the address mentioned on the dispatch was correct or not, is not correct.
ORDER In the result, the order is liable to be set aside. Revision is allowed. The order of the State Commission dated 10.07.2023 dismissing FA/245/2023 is set aside. Condonation of delay application i.e. IA/1311/2023 is allowed, and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. State Commission is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law."
V. Judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1711 of 2023 titled as MMTC Ltd. vs. S.B. Mittal & Ors. (Against the Order dated 13/04/2023 in Appeal No. FA/72/2022 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
2. The above revision has been filed against the order of The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 13.04.2023, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed as delay condonation application has been rejected.ALLOWED Page 17 of 19
FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023
3. A perusal of the impugned order of the State Commission shows that the impugned order of the District Forum was passed on 07.03.2022 and the appeal was filed on 05.05.2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, has waived the limitation with effect from 15.03.2020 to 30.05.2022, therefore, there was no delay at all and the State Commission has illegally dismissed the appeal as time barred.
4. In the result, the revision petition succeeds. The order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the State Commission in FA/72/2022 is set aside and the appeal is restored to its original number. It is held that the appeal has been filed within time.
....."
15. As per the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble NCDRC, it is mandatory to supply free copy of the impugned order to the parties and the period taken in issuing certified copy of the order has to be excluded while computing limitation.
16. Hence, if we calculate the period of limitation from 08.05.2023 i.e. the date when the impugned order was received by the Appellant, the present appeal was filed on 07.06.2023 i.e. within the period of limitation.
17. In view of the aforesaid, the application bearing IA No.1363/2023 filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
18. Issue notice of the appeal to the Respondent through registered post and speed post. A copy of appeal be also sent along with notice.
19. The Appellant 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.
ALLOWED Page 18 of 19FA/265/2023 MR. JATIN KUMAR VS. VEERA ENTERPRISES & ORS. DOD: 23.08.2023
20. Notice be given dasti to the Appellant. The Appellant shall thereafter, file an affidavit stating that the service has been effected on the Respondent.
21. List the matter on 11.10.2023.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 23.08.2023.
ALLOWED Page 19 of 19