HON’BLE MR. KAMAL DE, PRESIDING MEMBER
Order No. : 14
Date : 22.09.2021
Appellant/petitioner is present through Ld. Lawyer.
Respondent No. 3 is also present through Ld. Lawyer.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 take no step.
The instant IA case is taken up for hearing.
Heard Ld. Lawyer for the appellant/petition and respondent No. 3.
The instant IA case emerges out of impugned order being No. 19 dated 26.12.2017 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Burdwan in connection with Misc. Application No. 94/2017in CC/250/2016.
The instant case is filed with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal being RBR/A/28/2019.
In filing the IA case the petitioner/appellant submits that the appellant came to learn about the dismissal of CC/250/2016 on 26.12.2017 and after that he became ill from 08.01.2018 and was treated by doctor.
It is stated that he was suffering from chicken pox and after recovering he contacted with his Ld. Lawyer at Burdwan on 28.03.2018 and thereafter, the Ld. Lawyer prepared the Memo of Appeal.
It is stated that the appellant/petitioner is a resident of a remote village, namely, Nabagram which is 32 kms. away from Burdwan District.
It is stated that there has been a delay of 100 days apart from statutory period in filing the Appeal.
It is prayed that the delay in filing the Appeal may be condoned.
Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 filed written objection to the application for condonation of delay.
It is stated that the application has been filed with malafide motive and the application is false, frivolous and has no merit.
It is stated that the appellant has suppressed the material fact.
These respondents have stated that the appellant without filing an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 09.12.2016 passed by Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2833 of 2015, is unnecessarily harassing the respondents by preferring an Appeal before this Commission.
It is stated that the dispute from which this Appeal has arisen has already been set aside by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi by this Commission had got no jurisdiction to hear this dispute. These respondents have prayed for dismissal of the case.
It appears that there has been a delay of 73 days in filing the Appeal beyond statutory period of 30 days.
It appears from the own statement of the appellant that he came to know about the judgement of Ld. Forum below on 26.12.2017 and had suffered from illness on 08.01.2018. From such statement it is clear that the appellant has not taken any step for 13 days and the appellant did not mention anything in his application as that what prohibited him from filing the Appeal within 13 days.
It also appears that there is a gap to 1 day between two illness of the appellant as per the annexed medical document.
We are afraid the appellant did not produce any supporting documents such as investigation reports, medicine bills or list of medicine or prescriptions which could prove the genuineness of his illness.
As per the latest judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court day to day explanation/clarification is required for condonation of delay which is not provided by the appellant.
Moreover, we find that the appellant filed another case being No. 250 of 2016 against the same respondents to shift the focus.
Moreover, we find that State Bank of India preferred a revision before NCDRC, New Delhi in Revision Application No. 283/2015 against the appellant and the revision was allowed against the appellant on self-same matter. The dispute from which the Appeal has arisen has already been set aside of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi.
Appellant also moved before Hon’ble Apex Court but the special leave petition is also dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court arising out of the impugned final judgement and order dated 09.12.2016 in RP No. 283 of 2015 passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi.
It appears that the appellant filed another case before the Ld. Forum being No. 250/2016 to subject the focus.
The appellant fails to render any justification for condone of such long delay in filing the Appeal.
The law of limitation calls for explanation of each day delay after expiry of period of limitation and explanation of delay has to be rational, reasonable, realistic and acceptable.
The cause of delay showed by the appellant is not sufficient and bonafide.
We think that there is no satisfactory condition precedent for exercise of the extra ordinary restriction (sic discretion) vested in the Court for condonation of delay.
We find that there is no valid ground or such justification to exercise the power of this Commission for condonation of delay.
The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the present Appeal being No. RBR/A/28/2019 stands dismissed barred by limitation.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the instant IA being No. IA/94/2019 is dismissed on contest.
IA/94/2019 is thus disposed off.
