Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/39/2023

MR.LALIT BINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

. S.K.VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA ADV.

11 Mar 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

==================

Revision Petition No.	:	RP/39/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	14/09/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	11/03/2024

 

 

 

 

Lalit Bindal son of Sh. G.C.Bindal, Resident of 14/84, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad – 201002.

…. Revision Petitioner

 

Vs.

 

1.     S.K. Verma son of Mahendra Pal Verma, Resident of 3002, SBI Officers Society, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh – 160047.

 

2.     M/s YPS Developers (P) Limited

Registered Address: B-101, Somvihar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi – 110022, through its Directors - Yag Pal Singh and Prince Chaudhary, P-1, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201002.

 

3.     Yag Pal Singh son of Sh. Jagveer Singh, P-1, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201002.  

 

4.     Prince Chaudhary son of Sh. Yag Pal Singh, P-1, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201002. 

…. Respondents

 

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.
		Sh. S.K. Verma, Advocate, Respondent No.1 in person.
		Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

1.         The present revision petition has been filed on 14.09.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 23.02.2022 vide which the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/113/2021. Earlier, the Revision Petitioner had preferred appeal bearing No. A/57/2023 before this Commission against the aforesaid orders by depositing fifty per cent of one-fourth of the awarded amount as the Revision Petitioner was only one of the four Opposite Parties against whom the impugned order was passed. However, this Commission did not entertain the said appeal holding that the Appellant has to deposit fifty per cent of the full awarded amount to have a right of appeal. This Commission gave liberty to the Revision Petitioner to deposit the deficient mandatory deposit whereupon his appeal would be entertained. However, when the Revision Petitioner could not arrange the fifty per cent of the awarded amount, he has filed the instant revision petition under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

2.         Along with the revision petition, the Revision Petitioner has filed a separate application bearing no. MA/701/2023 for converting appeal to revision. During the course of proceedings, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner does not press the said application, therefore, vide order dated 27.02.2024, it was ordered to be filed.   

 

3.         This order will dispose off an application bearing MA/728/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 479 days in filing the revision petition, filed alongwith the revision petition.

 

4.         This application has been vehemently contested by the Respondent No.1 by filing reply.

 

5.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record.

 

6.         The application for condonation of delay has been moved without mentioning any provision of law, inter alia, on various grounds i.e. delay has taken place on account of procedural irregularities in the proceedings before this Commission, serious health issues of the Revision Petitioner/Applicant and wrong legal advice tendered.

 

7.         Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that no sufficient grounds have been made out for condonation of delay. As per law each and every day has to be explained for condonation of delay. No explanation has been given by the Revision Petitioner. While pleading that the Revision Petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs prayed, it has been submitted that the present application as well as revision petition both deserve to be dismissed. 

 

8.         However, it needs to be emphasized that perusal of the statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of forty five days from the date of impugned order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the limitation for filing the appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 had expired on 14.04.2022 and to file the Revision Petition had expired on 31.05.2022. Admittedly, the impugned order was pronounced on 23.02.2022 and the present revision petition was filed on 14.09.2023 i.e. after a delay of 479 days.

 

9.         Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner contented that the grounds for condonation of delay taken in previous application filed along with Appeal No. 57 of 2023, which has not been entertained by this Commission for want of statutory deposit, be read here in the present application as well. However, we are not impressed with the same. Admittedly, Appeal No. 57 of 2023 was disposed of by this Commission vide order dated 21.07.2023. To our mind, there is no provision that allows for the consideration of the contents of a previously disposed of application for condoning the delay in a subsequent application for condonation of delay filed by the same person as has been done by the Revision Petitioner. Therefore, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is bereft of any merit and is hereby declined.  In other words, once an application for condoning the delay has already been disposed of, its contents should not be revived or reconsidered in a subsequent application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

 

10.         While placing reliance on the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner raised a plea that benefit of aforesaid order as extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during COVID-19 is available to the Revision Petitioner as the Learned District Commission proceeded in undue haste and passed orders which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and the Revision Petitioner was condemned unheard. However, we are not inclined to accept the said plea. By the said orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court not only preferred for the extension of period of limitation but also made it clear that in computing the period of limitation for all proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded. No doubt, at the time when the impugned order was pronounced i.e. 23.02.2022, the aforesaid order dated 10.01.2022 was in vogue, but after 28.02.2022 there was no impediment in filing the appeal on or before 14.04.2022. Needless to mention here that the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. The Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the deadlines for protecting the rights of parties and ensuring that their remedies and defenses were not barred when the whole world was in the grip of devastating pandemic.

 

11.         The explanations provided by the Revision Petitioner are not sufficient to justify the delay. In order to condone the delay, the Revision Petitioner has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the 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”, 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.”

 

12.         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 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  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.”

 

13.         We further deem it appropriate to refer to “Lingeswaran etc. Versus Thirunagalingamin”, 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 latches. 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.”

 

14.         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/her case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.

 

15.         In the instant case, the Revision Petitioner has not acted bonafidely and the grounds taken by the Revision Petitioner are nothing but after thought to mislead the Court and thus do not merit consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that party who has not acted diligently or remains inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari”, reported as I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)” has also described the test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

 

16.         Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons which prevented them to come to the Court/ Commission within the stipulated period of limitation.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited”, reported as AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under:-

“It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

17.         The burden is on the Revision Petitioner to show that there was sufficient cause for the delay.  The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has been discussed and defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer”, 2013 AIR SCW 6510 (supra).

 

18.         Also in the case of “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority” reported as (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has warned the Commissions to keep in mind while dealing with such applications the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the 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 this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras."

 

19.         In a recent judgment the Hon’ble Supreme court observed that condonation of delay would depend on the background of each and every case; and routine explanation would not be enough. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “University of Delhi vs. Union of India & Ors.” in Civil Appeal Nos.9488­9489 of  2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.5581­5582 of 2019) decided on 17.12.2019  has held as under: -

“The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even­ handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation Page 24 of 34 would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation

…….

That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, latches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal.”

 

20.         The Revision Petitioner has miserably failed to explain 479 days delay to be condoned in filing the present revision petition or as to why he did not take immediate steps even after passing of the order dated 23.02.2022. The Revision Petitioner has miserably failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in paras supra and the facts of the case, the applicant/Revision Petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present revision petition. Therefore, the application filed by the Revision Petitioner seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.

 

21.         Consequently, the present revision petition filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.

 

22.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

23.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

11^th March, 2024                                                                       

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”