State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepanshu Kumar & Ors. vs Citi Bank N.A on 31 May, 2023
FA/111/2020 MR. DEEPANSHU KUMAR & ORS. VS CITI BANK D.O.D. 31.05.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:15.09.2020
Date of hearing:16.02.2023
Date of Decision : 31.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 111/2020
IN THE MATTER OF
1.MR. DEEPANSHU KUMAR S/O LATE MR. PRADEEP KUMAR
2. MRS. SHALINI KUMARI, D/O LATE MR. PRADEEP KUMAR
3. MS.PREETI KUMARI D/O LATE MR. PRADEEP KUMAR ALL R/O CD-11E, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-1100064 (Through: Mr. Vinod Malhotra, Advocate) ...Appellants VERSUS CITI BANK N.A. 124, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110001 PRESENTLY AT:-
GROUND AND 1ST FLOOR, DLF CAPITAL POINT, BABA KHARAK SINGH MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 ....Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Dismissed Page 1 of 8 FA/111/2020 MR. DEEPANSHU KUMAR & ORS. VS CITI BANK D.O.D. 31.05.2023 Present: Mr. Mohit Kumar, husband of appellant no.02 Ms. Shreya Bhardwaj, counsel for the respondent.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 15.09.2020 impugning order dated 15.01.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, (New Delhi), Delhi-110002 in Complaint Case No. 165/2009.
2. Along with this appeal, an application (IA-12/2020) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been filed. It is pertinent to mention that the application (IA-12/2020) has been moved without mentioning any provision of law.
However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is rising out of Complaint Case No.165/2009. Therefore, before deciding the present appeal on merits, the pending application (IA-12/2020) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is yet to be disposed off.
3. This order will dispose off an application (IA-12/2020) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
5. The application (IA-12/2020) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal moved by the counsel for the applicant/appellant is pending disposal. This application (IA- 12/2020) is duly supported by an affidavit of Ms. Preeti Kumari, one of the applicants/appellants.
6. The appellants have prayed for condonation of delay on the grounds that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Dismissed Page 2 of 8 FA/111/2020 MR. DEEPANSHU KUMAR & ORS. VS CITI BANK D.O.D. 31.05.2023 appellants had filed an application for the change of address i.e. CD-11/E, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, but they did not receive the copy of impugned order dated 15.01.2020 on the said address. Another application was filed before the Forum below, on 12.03.2020 for providing certified copy of impugned order dated 15.01.2020 which was received on 04.08.2020. Further, real brother of the applicant/appellant no. 1 contracted Corona Virus and being a joint family, the applicants/appellants were under quarantine for a considerable time.
7. Para No.2 to 4 of the application (IA-12/2020) under disposal read as under:
"2. That the complainants/appellants, during the pendency of the proceedings, had filed an application for the change of the address i.e. CD-11/E, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, but they did not receive the copy of the impugned order dated 15.01.2020 on the said address.
3. That as such, an application was filed before the Fora below on 12.03.2020 for providing certified copy of the order which was received on 04.08.2020.
4. That immediately thereafter, real brother of the appellant no.1 contracted Corona Virus and being a joint family, the appellants were under quarantine for a considerable time."
6 To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as follows:-
Dismissed Page 3 of 8FA/111/2020 MR. DEEPANSHU KUMAR & ORS. VS CITI BANK D.O.D. 31.05.2023 "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]"
7 A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 15.01.2020 and the present appeal was filed on 15.09.2020 i.e. after a delay of 214 days. 8 In order to condone the delay, the Appellants have 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 Dismissed Page 4 of 8 FA/111/2020 MR. DEEPANSHU KUMAR & ORS. VS CITI BANK D.O.D. 31.05.2023 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."
10 We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Dismissed Page 5 of 8 FA/111/2020 MR. DEEPANSHU KUMAR & ORS. VS CITI BANK D.O.D. 31.05.2023 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 15.01.2020 Dismissed Page 6 of 8 FA/111/2020 MR. DEEPANSHU KUMAR & ORS. VS CITI BANK D.O.D. 31.05.2023 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 14.02.2020. The reason stated for the delay is that during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellants had filed an application for change of their address i.e. CD- 11/E, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and they did not receive the impugned order on the same address. However, neither copy of the application for the change of address nor affidavit in this regard has been filed. As averred in para no. 4 of the application, real brother of the appellant no.1 contracted Corona virus and the applicants were under quarantine. On the other hand, the appellants have preferred not to submit the report of corona affected persons and not to mention the period for which they were under quarantine.
13 A perusal of record shows that the copy of impugned order was dispatched on 03.02.2020. The annotation on the copy of the judgment reads as under:
" 297-298 "
03/02/2020 Meaning thereby that the certified copy was ready on 03.02.2020.
14 Additionally, if we exclude the period during the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained by the appellants then the appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within stipulated period of time as in that case there is delay of 99 days. It is pertinent to mention that order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) no. 3 of 2020 is not applicable to the present case as limitation had expired on 14.02.2020.
Dismissed Page 7 of 8FA/111/2020 MR. DEEPANSHU KUMAR & ORS. VS CITI BANK D.O.D. 31.05.2023 15 As per the averments made in the application as well as the record, we are of the considered view that sufficient reason has not been explained for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and there is delay in filing the appeal. 16 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. 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 31.05.2023.
Dismissed Page 8 of 8