HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Nadia ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/40/2018.

2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant. The office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 142 days.

3. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and carefully perused the record including the application for condonation of delay.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and on perusal of the record it appears to me that paragraph Nos. 5,6 & 7 of the application for condonation of delay is the explanation given by the appellant for the delay caused in filing the instant appeal. To explain the said delay the appellant have stated that judgment of this case was passed on 12.07.2023 in connection with consumer case No. CC/40/2018. The Learned Advocate for the appellant when got the knowledge about the passing of the said judgment and as and when got the information of passing of the order, after consulting with the cause list has applied for obtaining certified copy of judgment dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia in connection with consumer case No. CC/40/2018 on 07.09.2023.

5. On careful perusal of the said record as well as the application for condonation of delay it appears to me that the judgment of this case was passed on contest against the appellant on 12.07.2023. So, the appellant had full knowledge about passing of delivery of the judgment on 12.07.2023 in connection with consumer case No. CC/40/2018. So, the submission that the Learned Advocate for the appellant when got the knowledge about passing of the said judgment and as and when got the information about passing of the order after consulting with the cause list has applied for obtaining certified copy of the said judgment on 07.09.2023 is not believable and acceptable at all. The appellant had full knowledge about the passing of the judgment on the date of delivery of the judgment while both the appellant and another contested the case before the Learned District Commission below. The plea taken by the appellant is not convincing and believable and the said plea, prima facie, appears to have been made with the intention to mislead the Commission to get the condonation petition allowed at the admission stage itself. Therefore, cause shown is insufficient.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal and Ors.  – Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has observed as under :-

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize 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 suffcient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation 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.”

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has  acted with reasonable diligence or not. The 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.”

8. In another case reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578 ( Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ),  the Hon’ble Apex has held that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein.

9. The Hon’ble court has further 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 Fora.”

10. The Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his argument has relied upon the unreported judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in connection with Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2023. However, reliance of this judgment in the adjudication of this appeal, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.

11. In view of the above decisions and under this facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 142 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

12. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.

13. The appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.

14. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.