HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 11/09/2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly at Chinsurah ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/62/2021.

2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellants. The office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 286 days.

3. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and also carefully perused the application for condonation of delay and its written objection thereto.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the record it appears to me that in the application the reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that the appellant No. 3 firm is a partnership firm which consists of two partners namely Sankar Kumar Paul and Gautam Dutta and the said partnership firm had been looking after by Sankar Kumar Paul and it was detected that a cancer patient. Due to such unfortunate situation the business of the partnership firm has been hampered and lack of communication was made between the appellants and the Learned Advocate who was conducting the case before the Learned District Commission.

5. Another ground for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal is that against the impugned order dated 11/09/2023 one review application being No. RA/1/2024 was filed by the appellants and it was finally considered and rejected as barred by law of limitation vide order dated 03/04/2024 and against that order a revisional application being No. C.O./2530/2024 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said application was also dismissed.

6. Upon perusal of the record it appears to me that the judgment and order in connection with consumer case No. 62/2021 was pronounced on 11/09/2023. The appellants being the opposite parties contested the case and the said consumer case was allowed on contest. Therefore, the appellants had full knowledge about the judgment passed by the Learned District Commission and knowing fully well about the judgment, the appellants remained silent for filing of the appeal and they did not act within the stipulated time for filing the appeal.

7. In the application for condonation of delay it is stated by the appellants that the appellant Sankar Kumar Paul was looking after the partnership firm and it was detected a cancer patient. But the appellants have nowhere stated in the application for condonation of delay about the period of detection of the cancer patient. This apart, it appears that there are another partner of the said firm. For the sake of argument if it is seen that the appellant No. 1 was ill but the appellant No. 2 did not take any steps to file the present appeal in preferring this appeal in time. The appellants have not stated in the application for condonation of delay what was prevented by the appellant No. 2 to file the present appeal within time.

8. Upon perusal of the record it appears to me that the impugned order was passed on 11/09/2023 and after expiry of 30 days the appellants filed review application on 08.01.2024 as per the provision of section 40. The said application was totally barred by limitation. Since the application was barred by limitation, as such, the Learned District Commission was pleased to dismiss the said review application as barred by limitation vide order dated 03/04/2024. Against the order of dismissal of the review application the appellants filed the revisional application being No. C.O./2530/2024 before the Hon’ble High Court and the said application was also dismissed. The appellants have stated that they acted and filed the review application and the review application was filed as per advice and consultation of the Learned Advocate. I think that the misadvice or miscommunication of the appellants that the Learned Advocate can be no ground for sufferance of the present respondents or a ground to condone the delay of the appellants to approach this forum.

9. After disposal of the case in favour of the respondents the respondents / Dhr initiated execution proceeding before the Learned District Commission vide execution case No. EA/77/2023 seeking enforcement of the said decree against the appellant / Jdrs. The Jdrs despite the lapse of the statutory period for preferring an appeal willfully and intentionally neglected to satisfy the order passed by the Learned District Commission and instead of satisfying the decree, the appellants / respondents have filed the appeal which is eventually time barred. I think that this appeal has been filed by the appellants only to get rid from the execution case filed by the respondents.

10. Under these facts and circumstances I may conclude that the appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause or justify the delay in filing the present appeal.

11. 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 sufficient 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.”

12. 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.”

13. 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.

14. 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.”

15. In view of the above decisions and under these facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 286 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

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

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

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

19. Consequently, I.A. being No. 705/2024 stands disposed of.