State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aggarwal Packers & Movers Pvt. Ltd vs Rashi Yadav on 5 October, 2023
AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS PVT. LTD. VS. RASHI YADAV RP/43/2023 05.10.2023 1.
Vide this order, we shall dispose of an application bearing IA No.1484/23 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petition.
2. Before deciding the present Revision Petition on merits, it has to be seen whether the Revision Petition was filed within the stipulated period provided under the Consumer Protection Act or whether the revisionist has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present Revision Petition.
3. The present Revision Petition was filed on 04.07.2023, challenging the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.67/2021, alongwith an application bearing No. IA-1484/2023 for condonation of delay for 180 days in filing the present petition. The revisionist seeks to condone the delay in filing the present revision petition on the ground which are mentioned in Para No. 2 to 6 of this application which read as under:
"2. Thatthe Revision Petitioner has three offices in Hyderabad/Secunderabad., situated at office address No.1, office address No.2 and office address No.3.
3. That on 14/5/2023. the legal documents/ files was shifting to office situate at Reg.office .306.3th floor cabra complex 61 Mg road Secunderabad Telangana. from office situated at 220_4th floor 61 MG Road Secunderabad. Telangana. for review meeting and at the time of review the files and documents, the officers of the Petitioner enquired the present matter pending before the Ld. Commission and then only the officers of the Petitioner came to the know that the no-one from the office of the Petitioner has the knowledge of the present matter even the office of the Petitioner has only summon of the Ld. Commission and there was no copy of the complaint with the summon of the Ld. Commission.
4. That soon after the knowledge of the Petitioner the Petitioner contacted his counsel and asked him to PAGE 1 OF 7 AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS PVT. LTD. VS. RASHI YADAV RP/43/2023 05.10.2023 enquire about the present case pending before the Ld. Commission.
5. That the counsel for the Revisionist after enquiry came to know that the Ld. Commission has pleased to proceeded the Revisionist ex-prate vide order dated 08.03.2022 and the same was duly informed to the Revisionist on __16/5/2023
6. That on the instructions of the Revisionist the counsel for the revisionist applied for the certified copy of the order dated 08.03.2023 and copy of the complaint and the same delivered to the counsel for the revisionist on __24/5/23"
4. To resolve this issue, we first deem it appropriate to refer to Regulation/ Section 14 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulation 2020, which provides as under:
"Section 14 Limitation:-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-
(i) Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order;"
5. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the revision petition against an order should be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of such order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 08.03.2022 and the present Revision Petition was filed on 04.07.2023 with a delay of 393 days.
6. In order to condone the delay, the Revisionist has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the present Revision Petition 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 PAGE 2 OF 7 AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS PVT. LTD. VS. RASHI YADAV RP/43/2023 05.10.2023 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."
7. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in IV (2015) CPJ 453 (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 PAGE 3 OF 7 AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS PVT. LTD. VS. RASHI YADAV RP/43/2023 05.10.2023 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."
8. 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 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 but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.
PAGE 4 OF 7 AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS PVT. LTD. VS. RASHI YADAV RP/43/2023 05.10.2023 5.1 In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157, in paragraph 14, it is observed and held as under:
"The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation."
9. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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.
10. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that period for filing the present revision expired on 06.06.2022. However, the Revisionist failed to file the revision within stipulated time and the reason stated that petitioner had only summoned without copy of complaint and due to shifting of legal documents/ files on 14.05.2023 from office situated at 220, 4th Floor, 61 M.G. Road Secunderabad Telangana to office situated at Reg. office 306, 3rd Floor Cabra Complex, 61 MG Road, Secunderabad Telangana, the officers of the petitioner enquired the present matter pending before the learned Commission and then only the officers of the petitioner came to the know; thereafter counsel was contacted PAGE 5 OF 7 AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS PVT. LTD. VS. RASHI YADAV RP/43/2023 05.10.2023 and asked to enquire about the matter, then came to know on 16.05.2023 that the revisionist was proceeded exparte; certified copy of the impugned order was applied which was received on 24.05.2023.
11. In the present case, the Revisionist has explained the delay caused in filing this present Revision Petition, in Para No. 2 to 6 of the application for condonation of delay. It has been admitted by the revisionist that the notice of the complaint was served to the revisionist/ opposite party but due to shifting the legal documents/ files on 14.05.2023 from office situated at 220, 4th Floor, 61 M.G. Road Secunderabad Telangana to office situated at Reg. office 306, 3rd Floor Cabra Complex, 61 MG Road, Secunderabad Telangana, the revisionist came to know that the present matter was pending.
12. A perusal of certified copy of impugned order filed alongwith petition at page No.9 shows that notice was duly served to the revisionist on 05.04.2021 and 30.03.2021, despite service none had appeared. They were proceeded exparte on 08.03.2022. Admittedly, revisionist had been served the notice of the complaint.
13. Further, it has been submitted that on 14.05.2023 the legal documents/ files were shifted from office situated at 220, 4th Floor, 61 M.G. Road Secunderabad Telangana to office situated at Reg. office 306, 3rd Floor Cabra Complex, 61 MG Road, Secunderabad Telangana. On perusal of copy of complaint filed at page No.11 alongwith petition shows that there are two address of opposite party/ revisionist. Second address of opposite party reads as under:-
Corporate office: #306, 3rd Floor, Kabra Complex, 61, M.G. Road, PAGE 6 OF 7 AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS PVT. LTD. VS. RASHI YADAV RP/43/2023 05.10.2023 Secunderabad-500003
14. It is for the appellant to explain as to when the notice of the complaint was served at above address which belongs to the revisionist.
15. No specific reason has been explained by the revisionist. The date of knowledge is very crucial which has not been mentioned by the applicant/ revisionist for the reasons best known to the revisionist. The applicant/ revisionist has failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused after the pronouncement of the impugned order.
16. Having regard to the statutory position discussed above and the facts of the case, the Revisionist has failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present revision petition. Therefore, the application filed by the revisionist seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the dismissed on the above grounds.
17. Consequently, the present revision petition filed beyond the stipulated period shall also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.
18. File be consigned to record room.
PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT Pronounced on 05.10.2023 PAGE 7 OF 7