State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mmtc Ltd. vs Shri. S.B Mittal & Ors. on 13 April, 2023
MMTC LTD. V. S.B. MITTAL & ORS.
13.04.2023
IA NO.531/2022 IN FA NO.72/2022
The present Appeal was filed by the Appellant on 05.05.2022
challenging the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 passed by Ld. District
Commission (South-II) in CC No. 478/2009 titled as S.B. Mittal v. MMTC
Ltd.. Alongwith the appeal, there is an application filed by the Appellant
seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.
Therefore, vide this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid
application for condonation of delay in the above appeal.
The application has been moved on behalf of the Appellant bearing
IA No.531/2022 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the
following ground:
1........
2. .......
3. That the Appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 on 10.03.2022 and the said certified copy was received on 22.03.2022.
4. That accordingly, the Appellant sought to file the present appeal on 02.05.2022 i.e. within a period of 45 days in terms of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 from the date of receiving the certified copy of the impugned order. However, the Learned Registry objected Page 1 of 8 on the ground that the period for filing of the appeal is 30 days in as much as the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall apply for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation in filing the present appeal.
5. Additionally, the Appellant had got prepared a demand draft dated 28.04.2022 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- drawn in favour of the Registrar, State Commission, Delhi. However, when the Appellant was filing the appeal on 02.05.2022, it was informed by the Learned Registry that instead of said demand draft, a Fixed Deposit in favour of Registrar, State Commission has to be created.
6. That it is also most respectfully submitted that collation of documents and necessary approval for filing the present appeal from the Appellant Company, the Appellant being a Govt. of India took considerable time in finalizing the present appeal.
7. That the aforementioned facts and circumstances has led to a delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal. Therefore the Appellant herein is filing the present application seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal.
Since, the complaint filed by the Appellant was filed under the old Consumer Protection Act, therefore, to adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as follows:
Page 2 of 8"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."
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, as the complaint filed by the Appellant was filed under the old Consumer Protection Act. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 07.03.2022, the certified copy of which was received by the Appellant on 22.03.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 05.05.2022 with a delay of 18 days, though the Appellant has sought condonation of 25 days delay in filing the appeal.
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 Page 3 of 8 Officer reported at AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as follows:-
"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."
We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported at IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as follows: -
"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 v. New Okhla Industrial Development Page 4 of 8 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."
We further deem it appropriate to refer to judgment dated 25.02.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 titled as Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam, 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 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 Popat Bahiru Goverdhane 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 Page 5 of 8 but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.
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 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.
On perusal of record before us, Para 3 to Para 7 of the application for condonation of delay is the explanation given by the Appellant for the delay caused in filing this appeal. 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 order on 22.03.2022. Further, no document was furnished by the Appellant to prove the contention that when the legal opinion was received, when it instructed the counsel. The Appellant failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused after the receipt of the impugned judgment, legal opinion and the FDR. It is further submitted by the counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is a Govt. of India enterprise and due to the impersonal machinery, the delay occurred in taking various approvals for filing the present appeal. To this argument of the Appellant, we deem it appropriate to refer to the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors. Reported at AIR 2012 SC 1506, wherein the apex court has held as follows:
"12. .......The claim on account of impersonal machinery andinherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the Page 6 of 8 modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
It is further stated that the Appellant was under the bonafide belief that the limitation period was 45 days and not 30 days. There is a maxim that "ignorance of law is no excuse". Therefore, we do not find any cogent reason for condoning the delay as admitted by the Appellant himself. The Appellant failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment.
Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Appellant for the delay except mentioning of events. According to us, the Appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such delay. Accordingly, the application filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay is without any merit and needs to be dismissed.
Page 7 of 8Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the stipulated period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.
File be consigned to record room.
(Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal) President (Pinki) Member (Judicial) (J.P. Agrawal) Member Page 8 of 8