HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 against the order Dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  Kolkata,  Unit IV in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/9/2022.

2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant.  The office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 176 days.

3. Heard the Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and also carefully perused the application for condonation of delay. 

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and on 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 after passing of the impugned order the appellant/ complainant filed an application before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sealdah, Unit - IV for review of the said judgment and said review application has been disposed of on 13.07.2023. As such, there is some delay in filing the appeal.  Another ground for delay in filing of the appeal is that the complainant suffered from illness on and from 10.10.2023 to 25.11.2023 and he was under the treatment of a doctor. As such,  the appellant could not file the appeal in time. 

5. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to me that after passing the impugned order the appellant/ complainant filed the review application for review of the impugned order dated 19.04.2023. On perusal of the copy of the order dated 06.07.2023 and 13.07.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  Sealdah,  Unit - IV  it appears to me that on both the above mentioned days the review applicant / complainant did not turn up before the Learned District Commission.  The order No. 2 dated 13.07.2023 passed by the Learned District Commission in connection with review application No. 9 of 2023 discloses that no steps was taken by the review applicant and none appears on behalf of the applicant also.  Moreover, it appears to me that the said application was filed beyond the period of 30 days. Considering this, the Learned District Commission below was pleased to dismiss the said R.A. application for default. 

6. In respect to the illness of the complainant I find that the complainant has not filed any prescriptions and / or medical papers to show that the complainant/ appellant was ill on and from 10.10.2023 to 25.11.2023 and he was treated by the Doctor. The appellant has not explained why he did not produce the said medical papers save and except the medical certificate to prove his illness. In the result, I find that there were latches and negligence on the part of the complainant/ appellant in filing the present appeal in time. Therefore, I find that the cause shown is insufficient.

7. 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.”

8. 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.”

9. 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.

10. 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.”

11. In view of the above decisions and under this facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 176 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

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

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

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