STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                       UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                           APPEAL NO. 1807 OF 2014

                 (Against the judgment/order dated 09-05-2014 in Complaint

             Case No. 49/2013 of the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Dehat)

Matacharan, S/o Shyamlal

R/o Sujgawa

Tehsil & Pargana Bhognipur

District Kanpur Dehat 

                                                                          ...Appellant/Complainant

  Vs.

  Executive Engineer

  Vidyut Vitran Khand, Pukhraya

  Tehsil & Pargana Bhognipur

  District Kanpur Dehat

                                                                      ...Respondent/Opposite Party                                                                                                                          

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT

For the Appellant       :  Sri R K Mishra, Advocate.

For the Respondent    :                        -

Dated : 15-10-2015

                                                JUDGMENT

MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT (ORAL)

This appeal is put up today. Sri R K Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant has been heard. The appeal is pending for admission.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant  against the judgment and order dated 09-05-2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 49/2013 for enhancement of compensation.

A perusal of the record shows that the impugned order was passed on 09-05-2014, the copy of which was received by the appellant on 04-06-2014 and the appeal is filed on 09-09-2014 which is apparently time barred. Though an application for delay condonation has been filed on record accompanied with an affidavit of Matacharan, S/o Shyamlal the appellant stating therein that the due to ill health of the appellant the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained by the appellant on 04-06-2014. It is

:2:

further stated that after passing of the judgment the Counsel did not inform about it and it was informed only when the applicant asked the Counsel to know the state of the case. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant was under treatment from 20-06-2014 to 25-08-2014 and due to this reason he was very disturbed and he forgot where he had kept the certified copy of the judgement. Thereafter he had submitted another application for another certified copy of the judgment and order which was issued on 03-10-2014. The delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and the same may be condoned.

We are not convinced with the above facts and these facts cannot be the basis of satisfaction of this Commission that there had been sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period stipulated in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for entertaining the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days for filing the appeal from the date of the order, because the law is very much clear in this regard. In various cases decided by the Hon'ble National Commission it is held that an application for condonation of delay should be decided keeping in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for filing the appeals and revisions in the consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the courts entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.

A party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention, is the law laid down by the Apex Court on 08-07-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006 Balwant Singh (dead) versus Jagdish Singh and others.

In Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361, it has been observed that '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 sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section

:3:

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 bonafides may fall for consideration but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such fact as the court may regard as relevant'.

Recently the Apex Court in the Office of the Chief Post Master General and others versus Living Media India Ltd. and another decided on 24-02-2012 in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7595-96 of 2011 was pleased to observe:

“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 every one under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

Recently the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Pfizer Limited V/s Gopi Krishan Atri decided on 23-02-2015 in Revision Petition No. 4436 of 2014 was pleased to observe:

“There is huge delay of about four to five years in filing the revision petition. The blame has been put on the advocate, which appears to be false

:4:

because it has become a fashion to put the blame on the advocates, which is nothing but a ruse so that the application may be accepted.

The expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay. The day to day delay was not explained. “

In Banshi V/s Lakshmi Narain – 1993(1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and inquired about the case.

In Jaswant Singh V/s Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies 2000 (3) Punj. L.R.83 it was observed that cause of delay was that the counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed.

In Bhandari Dass V/s Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor did he send any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay. After lapse of 6 year, they have filed the revision petition and uptil now they have not taken any action against the advocate. No complaint was made before the Bar Council of India. Even the name of the advocate was not disclosed. The arguments coming forth at this late stage are frivolous and vexatious.

The Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil V/s Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17-12-2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. V/s Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12-07-2013. Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur House & Area Dev. Board and

:5:

another V/s Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19-11-2013.

In the light of the law laid down in the case of Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361 if we enquire the relevant facts even in limited scope of this case, apparently the sufficient cause is not proved before us, therefore, nothing further has to be done and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The delay in filing of this appeal cannot be condoned merely stating that the appellant was ill and the Counsel did not inform about the judgment.

Hence without making any elaborate discussion on the merit of the case of the appellant, prima facie we do not find any sufficient cause in which the delay for filing the appeal should be condoned and therefore, the appeal being time barred is liable to be dismissed.

                                                      ORDER

The appeal is hereby dismissed.

( JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH )

                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

pnt