For the Appellant         (s)      :     Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate and

                                              Ms. Deepshikha Mishra, Advocate

Dated : 12.07.2024

ORDER

                Appellant has filed MA Nos.409, 410 and 411 of 2024 seeking recall of order dated 08.12.2023 dismissing the Appeals for non-prosecution.

-2-

2.      These MAs have been filed with a delay of 141 days.  IA Nos.8588, 8589 and 8590 of 2024 have been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of these MAs.  It is stated in the applications that the entire set of documents pertaining to the Appeals were lost during the shifting of office of the authorised counsel.

3.      The delay in the filing of the MAs is nearly five months.  The Appellant has not explained this long period of delay on its part except to ascribe the delay to shifting of its counsel.  The reason for delay of nearly five months without any basis to explain why the matter was not pursued with diligence by its own Counsel is not a cogent reason. 

4.            The law of limitation requires delay for each day of delay to be explained after expiry of the period of limitation. It is necessary that this explanation is rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable. A perusal of the application for the condonation of delay establishes beyond doubt that the delay was caused because the Applicant dealt with the case in a rather routine and casual manner.

5.      The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the settled legal proposition of law of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party.  The Appellant has not been able to

-3-

provide adequate and sufficient reasons which prevented him to approach this Commission within the limitation.

6.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that party who has not acted diligently or remained inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) has also described the test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not.

7.      The burden is on the applicant 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.

8.      Further, in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has advised the Consumer Forums to keep in mind while dealing with such applications the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act.

-4-

9.      The cause shown for delay in filing of the MAs is not sufficient.  IA Nos.8588, 8589 and 8590 of 2024 are, therefore, disallowed.  Consequently, MA 409, 410 and 411 of 2024 are dismissed.