State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Proview Construction Ltd vs Bal Krishan Sachdeva & Anr on 22 March, 2023
FA/231/2022 M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS BAL KRISHAN SACHDEVA & ANR. D.O.D. - 22.03.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 22.11.2022
Date of hearing: 20.01.2023
Date of Decision: 22.03.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.-231/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD.
OFFICE: 190, SAINI ENCLAVE, VIKAS MARG
NEW DELHI-110092
(Through : Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay & Mr. Ashish Mishra,
Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. BAL KRISHAN SACHDEVA
R/O 8/41 GEETA COLONY
P/O GANDHI NAGAR
DELHI-110031
2. KAMLESH SACHDEVA
R/O 8/41 GEETA COLONY
P/O GANDHI NAGAR
DELHI-110031
(Through : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate)
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay along with Mr. Ashish Mishra,
counsel for the appellant
DISMISSED Page 1 of 8
FA/231/2022 M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS BAL KRISHAN SACHDEVA & ANR. D.O.D. - 22.03.2023
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for the respondents along
with Mr. Bal Krishan Sachdeva, respondent no.. 01 in person,
he is the husband of respondent no. 02.
PER :MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
ORDER
1. The present appeal has been filed on 22.11.2022, challenging the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IX (East District), Saini Enclave, Delhi in CC No. 1077/2014. Along with this appeal, an application (IA No.- 1706/2022) seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been filed. Therefore, before deciding the present appeal on merits, the pending application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is yet to be disposed off.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that this application has been moved without mentioning any provision of law, however, it is being considered under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No. 1077/2014 which was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IX (East District), Saini Enclave, Delhi.
3. This order will dispose off an application (IA No.-1706/2022) seeking condonation of delay of one hundred twenty seven days in filing the appeal.
4. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused. Reply to this application (IA No.- 1706/2022) has also been filed by the respondent vide which the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the appeal .
5. The application (IA No-1706/2022) dated 14.11.2022, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed along with the DISMISSED Page 2 of 8 FA/231/2022 M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS BAL KRISHAN SACHDEVA & ANR. D.O.D. - 22.03.2023 main appeal on 22.11.2022 and is supported by an affidavit of Ms, Vandana Gupta, Legal Manager of the appellant Company.
6. The applicant/appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 127 days on the grounds that the counsel for the applicant/appellant had received the Certified Copy of the judgment dated 31.05.2022 on 18.10.2022. Thereafter due to the sudden demise of the counsel for the appellant, the appellant was unaware of the proceedings and after the demise of the counsel, the appellant had to engage new counsel who after going through the entire case, took appropriate steps and thereafter asked the appellant to provide relevant documents for drafting of appeal and thereafter, the counsel drafted the present appeal and filed the present before this Commission. Therefore, the delay of one hundred twenty seven days has occurred in filing the appeal.
7. Applicant/appellant has also submitted that after receiving the certified copy of the judgment dated 31.05.2022, the appellant has filed the appeal on 16.11.2022, hence the appeal is within the time period of thirty days from the date of receiving the certified copy of the impugned final order.
7. Para 3 and 4 of the application under disposal which are the averments/reasons for delay in filing the appeal read as under:-
3. That it is submitted that the Counsel of the Appellant received the Certified Copy of the Judgment on 18/10/2022 and the Appellant is filing the Appeal on 16/11/2022, hence the Appeal is within the time period of 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of the impugned final order of the Ld. District Commission.
4. That it is submitted that due to the sudden demise of the Counsel for the Appellant, the Appellant was unaware of the proceedings and after DISMISSED Page 3 of 8 FA/231/2022 M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS BAL KRISHAN SACHDEVA & ANR. D.O.D. - 22.03.2023 the demise of the counsel, the Appellant engaged new counsel who after going through case, took appropriate steps and thereafter asked the Appellant to provide relevant documents for drafting of appeal and thereafter, the counsel drafted the present appeal and filed the present appeal before this Hon'ble Commission.
8. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:-
"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."
9. A 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. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 31.05.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 22.11.2022 with a delay of one hundred forty five days.
10. In order to condone the delay of one hundred forty five, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated DISMISSED Page 4 of 8 FA/231/2022 M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS BAL KRISHAN SACHDEVA & ANR. D.O.D. - 22.03.2023 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 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."
11. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.reportedinIV(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 AnshulAggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development DISMISSED Page 5 of 8 FA/231/2022 M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS BAL KRISHAN SACHDEVA & ANR. D.O.D. - 22.03.2023 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."
12. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus ThirunagalingaminSpecial Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022decided 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 DISMISSED Page 6 of 8 FA/231/2022 M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS BAL KRISHAN SACHDEVA & ANR. D.O.D. - 22.03.2023 inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.
13. 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.
14. Reverting back to the material available on record, we find that the impugned order was passed on 31.05.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 30.06.2022.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant/appellant has not explained the reason for the delay between 31.05.2022 and 18.10.2022. The applicant/appellant has only mentioned that the counsel for the appellant received the Certified copy of the judgment dated 31.05.2022 on 18.10.2022. The applicant has not mentioned the date when he has applied for the certified copy of the order dated 31.05.2022. Even the applicant/appellant has not mentioned the name of the counsel who had expired and the date when he had expired.
16. A perusal of record further shows that the copy was dispatched on 11.07.2022. The annotation on the copy of the judgment reads as under:-
" 5695 to 5698/East "
11.07.2022 Meaning thereby that the certified copy was ready on 11.07.2022.
DISMISSED Page 7 of 8FA/231/2022 M/S PROVIEW CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS BAL KRISHAN SACHDEVA & ANR. D.O.D. - 22.03.2023
17. 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/appellant has abused the process of law and filed this appeal after immense delay without any reasonable ground There is no corresponding document on record to substantiate the reason for delay as averred in the application. No cogent reasons have been mentioned only general reasons have been averred.
18. 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 of one hundred forty five days in filing the appeal.
19. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in parasupraand 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. Hence dismissed.
20. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period shall also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
21. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 22.03.2023 DISMISSED Page 8 of 8