Delhi

East Delhi

MA/121/2022

AAYUSH KANDWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRITISH AIRWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2023

ORDER

Case No.      :         194/2019

Date            :         15.05.2023

 

Present        :         Complainant in person

 

1. By this Order the Commission would dispose off two applications of the Complainant filed by him i.e. one application under section 40 of the CPA for reviewing the Order dated 16.03.2022 by which complaint of the Complainant was dismissed and another application seeking Condonation of Delay of 143 days in filing the review application. 
2. Before the Commission considers the application seeking review, the application seeking Condonation of Delay has to be disposed off first, as if the application seeking Condonation of Delay is allowed only then the review application will be considered.  Therefore, the application seeking Condonation of Delay is taken up first. 
3. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant   in this application are that the Complainant has personally gone to the Hon’ble Commission on 16.03.2022, where and he was asked to join virtually but on account of certain technical reason the voice of the Complainant was not getting through the Hon’ble Commission and therefore he returned back and for long time the status of his matter was not available on website and ultimately the counsel visited the Commission on 06.05.2022 to know about the complaint case and came to know that the complaint case has been dismissed in default on 16.03.2022.
4. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant was not available in India, for personally signing the application as well as affidavit and he only came back to India on 29.07.2022 but at that time the counsel for the complainant was not available due to admission of his son and as such application was not drafted and in between the complainant had again gone to Spain from 13.09.2022 to 19.10.2022 and as such there is a delay of 194 days in filing the review application and it is ultimately prayed that delay in filing the application of 143 days be condoned. 
5. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record and is of the opinion that since the matter has already been dismissed in default there is no need to issue notice to the OP1 and OP2.  The Commission has also perused the Law.  The Section 40 reads as under: 

Section 40 states "The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order."  

6. Keeping in view the provision of Section 40 the application was to be filed within 30 days from the date of 16.03.2022.  Even otherwise once the Counsel has admitted in the application that he came to know only on 06.05.2022, the application seeking review should have been filed by within 30 days from the date of the knowledge of the Counsel.  The contention of the Counsel for the Complainant is that initially complainant went out of India and then he was busy for the admission of his son and then complainant again went to Spain and came back India only on 19.10.2022.  Where the complainant has gone, when he went, when he returned are not specified, copy of his passport is not placed on record.  The business of Counsel although is not much relevant yet no document in support of the facts mentioned by the counsel in this regard have been placed on record.  From the conduct of the complainant who earlier was not appearing, it is clear that even when he came to know about the proceedings he was not bothering about the filing the application at earliest, rather the complainant anticipates that whenever he would be free  then only he would contact his counsel and when the counsel would be free from all worldly activities then only he would be drafting the application.     
7. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the facts mentioned in the application by the complainant are too vague to be consider and there is no reasonable ground of seeking Condonation of Delay.  Law is otherwise well settled that complainant has to explain each day’s delay. 
8. In Suranjan Biswas vs Ashoke Kumar Nath & Anr. on 15 November, 2021, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 15.11.2021 in first Appeal No.1005/2019 was held that:

“The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Mr. C. Vishwanath as the presiding member and Mr. J. Ram Surat Ram Maurya as a member recently observed that the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should be explained for every day of the delay. The bench observed this while dismissing a revision petition filed under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act-2019.”

9. Further, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1429 of 2016 of Soudharya Jewllers V/s Paidi Jaganadha Rao was held that:

It is also a settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”. The Hon’ble 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.”

10. Therefore, keeping in view the law points, the application is not maintainable.
11. Application seeking Condonation of delay is dismissed. 
12. Since, the applicant seeking Condonation of delay has been dismissed, the application seeking review is also dismissed. 
13. File be consigned to Record Room.