State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman Railway Board Rail Bhawan ... vs Dr. Mohd. Ramzan on 31 January, 2023
A/118/2022 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN DOD : 31.01.2023.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:25.07.2022
Date of hearing : 20.01.2023
Date of Decision :31.01.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 118/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD
RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
DR. MOHD. RAMZAN
S/O LATE MR. ABDUL SATTAR
R/O J-3/31B, KHIRKI EXTN.,
MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110017
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, counsel for the appellant.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 25.07.2022 impugning the order dated 12.04.2022 vide which CC No.244/2014 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI (New District), M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi-110002.
2. This order will dispose off an application (IA-147/2023) seeking condonation of delay of 43 days in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal.
Page 1 of 7A/118/2022 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN DOD : 31.01.2023.
3. The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant have been heard and considered. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.244/2014.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that certified copy of the impugned order was received by appellant on 01.06.2022 which was applied on 27.05.2022. The appellant further submits that the delay in filing the appeal is procedural delay and in this regard, the observation has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jan, 2008 (14) SCC 583. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate.
6. 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]"Page 2 of 7
A/118/2022 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN DOD : 31.01.2023.
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 judgment was pronounced on 12.04.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 25.07.2022 i.e. after a delay of 74 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 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 Page 3 of 7 A/118/2022 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN DOD : 31.01.2023.
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- 2055/2022decided 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 Page 4 of 7 A/118/2022 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN DOD : 31.01.2023.
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 12.04.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 12.05.2022. Further, it is admitted by the Appellant that it had received the copy of the impugned order on 01.06.2022 which was applied on 27.05.2022. However, the Appellant failed to explain as to why it remained dormant even after receiving the certified copy on 01.06.2022.
Page 5 of 7A/118/2022 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN DOD : 31.01.2023.
13. Additionally, the Appellant's sole justification in the aforementioned application was that the delay in filing the Revision Appeal (should have been appeal) is Procedural delay. 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 in AIR 2012 SC 1506, wherein the apex court has held as under:
"12. .......The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the 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."
14. Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Appellant for the delay except inculpating the government lengthy approval procedures. According to us, the Appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent sufficient reasons to condone such delay. As a result, it is abundantly clear from the above that the Appellant was Page 6 of 7 A/118/2022 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN DOD : 31.01.2023.
moving at his own pace unmindful that the prescribed period to file an appeal is 30 days from the date of impugned judgment.
15. Therefore, the application (IA-47/2023) filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
16. 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.
17. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 31.01.2023.
Page 7 of 7