Order No. 05 Date-18.02.2020

            Ld. Advocate of both parties are present. OPs file WO against the application dated 27.12.2019 U/s 5 of the Limitation Act of the complainants.  Copy served.

            Miscellaneous Application dated 27.12.2019 filed by the complainants is taken up for hearing.

 Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainants who submits that complainants had entered into a Sale Agreement dated 08.09.2017 with the OP-1 Country Vacation (a Division of Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd.) against payment of Rs. 50,000/- for obtaining holiday benefits. He further submits that the complainants did not avail any benefit from the OP-1 in terms of the Sale Agreement and on 14.09.2017, they cancelled the said agreement with a request to refund deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- after deducting Rs. 3,800/- as administration charges. The OP-1 failed and neglected to refund Rs. 46,200/- after adjustment of Rs. 3,800/-. Finding no other alternative, the complainants approached the Consumer Grievances Cell to redress their grievance and the concerned authority advice the complainants to file a consumer complaint before the Competent Forum. There is 109 days delays in filing the consumer complaint and if the delay is not condoned, in that event the complainants will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Per contra, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs strongly opposes the prayer of the complainants on the ground that there is a delay of 109 days which is unacceptable and no specific reason of delay has been stated in the Miscellaneous Application. According to her, even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to condonation of delay in the question as a matter of right.

 We have heard the submission of both sides. Perused the Judgment cited by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant in connection with Civil Appeal No. 4767/2019 and the decision cited  by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361. Also the perused the impugned application coupled with its WO thereto.

FINDINGS

It is settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the complainants have to set out the case showing sufficient reasons for not being able to come to the Court / Commissions within the stipulated period of limitation.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under:

"It is, however, necessary to emphasise 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 condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay 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."

  The burden is put upon the applicant to show sufficient causes 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, as under:

"Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence.  The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man.  In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bonafide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive".  However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever he court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.  The court has to examine whether the mistake is bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd.  V. Bhootnath Banerjee &Ors, AIR 1964 SC 1336; LalaMatadin V. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal V. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 L2011 AIR SEW 1233); and ManibenDevraj Shah V. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412).

...............

It is a settle legal proposition that law of limitation  may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.  The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.  " A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil.  A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation."  The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.  The legal maxim "dura lexsedlex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation.  It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

...........

The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the " sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.  No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever.  The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay.  In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature". 

 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that party who has not acted diligently or remain inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "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.  The Hon'ble Supreme 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."

Also in the case of " Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has warned the Commissions to keep in mind while dealing with such applications the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 foras."

In the instant case the Purchase Agreement for Club and Vacation Membership was executed on 26.05.2011 between the complainants and the OP-1. Both the complainants acknowledged and confirmed the terms and conditions, Rules and regulations, bye laws of CCIL by signing on the agreement. The membership is for 2011 to 2020. It is admitted fact that the complainants failed to  pay annual maintenance charges @ Rs 6,000/- per year to the OP-1 in spite of knowing the terms and condition of the purchase agreement. The instant consumer complaint has been filed after 08 years and 07 months from the date of execution of the purchase agreement.   The decision cited by the complainants passed in civil appeal No. 15611 of 2017  (Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr.) the Hon’ble Apex Court condone the delay of 08 days but in the instant case there is inordinate delay.

In view of these facts and view of the discussion, there is no merit in the impugned application. We find no sufficient ground to condone the delay of 109 days. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.

Thus, the MA being No. 684 of 2019 is disposed of.

As a consequence, consumer complaint being CC No. 532/2018 is also dismissed in limine being barred by limitation.