Tripura

StateCommission

A/25/2017

Interglobe Aviation Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Babul Roy - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Mr.Diptanu Debnath

27 Jun 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.25.2017

 

1. InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. (IndiGo),

Through its Authorised Representative,

Central Wing, Ground Floor,

Thapar House, 124, Janpath,

New Delhi.

 

2. Station Manager,

InterGlobe Aviation Ltd.,

Agartala Airport IndiGo Office,

P.O. Airport, West Tripura, Agartala.

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties

 

1. Dr. Babul Roy,

S/o Late Amulya Roy,

Town Pratapgarh, Road No.1, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala, District - West Tripura.

 

2. Smt. Supti Roy,

W/o Dr. Babul Roy,

Town Pratapgarh, Road No.1, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala, District - West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainants.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                         Mr. Dushyant Manocha, Adv. &

Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Adv.

 

For the Respondents:                                Mr. Kajal Nandi, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:   27.06.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. (IndiGo) and its  Station Manager, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., Agartala Airport IndiGo Office under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No. C.C. 40 of 2016 along with an application for condoning the delay of 153 days in preferring the appeal against the aforesaid judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Dushyant Manocha, Ld. Counsel as assisted by Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Aviation Company) as well as Mr. Kajal Nandi, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as complainants).
3. The case of the complainants as gathered from the record is that the complainant no.1, Dr. Babul Roy and his wife, the complainant no.2 purchased two air tickets from the opposite parties, IndiGo for travelling from Agartala to Delhi on 28.03.2016 and on their way to Srinagar they had confirmed air ticket by Go Air flight for travelling from Delhi to Srinagar on 29.03.2016. The complainants carried all necessities for their entire journey period with them. Two luggage was handed over and booked with the opposite party no.2 at Agartala airport and when they reached in Delhi, they found one luggage was missing and in the missing baggage, the complainants had the following goods:-
4.  

Sl. No.		Qty (in nos.)	Rate (Rs.)
	Trolley Bag
	Number Lock
	Woolen Blanket
	Terry wool complete set
	Neck tie
	Woolen Sweater
	Woolen Sweater
	Woolen Sweater
	Woolen Shirt (USA)
	Woolen Shirt
	Cotton Full Shirt
	Cotton Half Shirt
	Terry wool winter inner set
	Long Pant
	Socks
	Handkerchief
	Bath Towel big
	Pajama & Panjabi
	Woolen Cap
	Gillette Shaving Set
	Woolen Coat
	Tooth Brush
	Tooth Paste
	Shoe Brush
	Shoe Polish
	Nebulizer Machine
	Nebulizer Drug

                                                                                                                                     ”

Accordingly, complaint was made to the IndiGo Authority in the Customer Care Desk, but the missing luggage was not returned. On 29.03.2016 at 06.00 p.m., complainant no.1 sent one SMS to the Customer Care of IndiGo stating as follows:-

• Service provided by Indigo Authority is very poor because I flew on 28.03.2016 Flight No.6E 672 from Agartala to Del handed over my luggage at Agartala but at Delhi I could not find my luggage at Belt No.3 and instantly I informed & lodged complain to Customer Care Desk. But it is a matter of regret that after lapse of 27 hours I did not get my luggage………….Babul Roy” and there was no response from the opposite party, Aviation Company till 16.04.2016. Again, one e-mail was sent to the Aviation Company, but no satisfactory response was received from the opposite party, Aviation Company. Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite party, Aviation Company, the complainants filed an application under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala to pay compensation of Rs.90,540/- on account of loss of goods and Rs.4,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, sufferings, inconvenience and discomfort during the travelling period.  

4. Opposite party, Aviation Company appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the complainants. It is stated that information of loss of baggage was given in time. Rs.4,200/- was offered for loss of baggage. As per terms and conditions, complainants are not entitled to get any more. Thus, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.
5.  Complainants produced the statement on affidavit and also produced relevant documents including the PIR, Air ticket, list of articles, feedback comments of service, email copies, which were marked as Exhibit-1 series. They have also examined themselves as P.W.1 & P.W.2 respectively.
6. Opposite parties on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of one Navneet Anand, Authorised Representative of the opposite parties and he admitted the fact that the complainants booked two tickets of Flight No.6E 672 for travel on 28.03.2016 from Agartala to Delhi and that the complainants travelled from Agartala to Delhi on the said date wherein the answering opposite parties duly attended to all queries regarding loss of baggage of the complainants and made all possible efforts to trace the missing baggage and finally, as per Conditions of Carriage (COC), the opposite parties approved an amount of Rs.4,200/- to be paid to the complainants. The opposite parties have also examined the aforesaid Navneet Anand as O.P.W.1, who in his cross-examination has specifically stated that he was not present and it is not fact that passengers were asked to give details of the lost items and he cannot say the name of the official of IndiGo who filled the form. They have also filed one written argument, wherein it is stated that the P.W.1 never came in the witness box for his cross-examination before the Ld. District Forum, but P.W.2, Smt. Supti Roy, the complainant no.2 has specifically stated that PIR was signed and seen by Dr. Babul Roy and complainants have no documents in support of the products and price which were inside the missing bag.
7. The Ld. District Forum considering the documents produced by the complainants namely, PIR, Air ticket, list of articles, feedback comments of service, email copies as well as the evidence of the parties passed the impugned judgment directing the opposite parties IndiGo to pay an amount of Rs.59,200/- (Rs.4,200/- as compensation as per their Rule and in addition to that Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the dresses lost with the baggage for deficiency of service and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation).
8. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment as stated (supra), the instant appeal is filed along with the condonation petition.
9. Today is fixed for hearing on condonation petition.
10. Mr. Manocha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties while urging for condoning the delay would contend that the delay is bona fide and not intentional. More so, the impugned judgment is perverse one. He has relied upon the Paragraph-3 of the condonation petition wherein it is stated that the appellant duly received the copy of the impugned order and sent the same to the corporate office of the appellant no.1 which is situated at Gurgaon, Haryana and upon receiving the direction to prepare the appeal by the corporate office of the appellant no.1, appeal was duly prepared by the counsel for the appellants and sent to the corporate office of the appellant no.1 for necessary approval. He further submits that the appeal could not be filed in time as the appellants were in the process of locating a local lawyer in Agartala to represent the appellants in the present appeal and that also took some time. He has referred to Paragraph-7 of the condonation petition wherein it is mentioned that the demand draft to be deposited with the present appeal was purchased on 16.01.2017. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that ‘sufficient cause’ should be construed liberally and in that case the Hon’ble Apex Court condoned the delay of 883 days in approaching the Court against the dismissal of application to set aside ex parte decree. He has further contended that though in the condonation petition delay in preferring the appeal is mentioned 153 days, but actually, the delay is 98 days.
11. Per contra, the respondent-complainants have filed objection to the condonation petition and submitted that no satisfactory explanation has been given and no date/period has been mentioned to prove that the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable. It is also stated in the objection petition that the opposite parties did not mention in their condonation petition regarding the date/period such as who had prepared the memo of appeal, when the memo of appeal was sent to the corporate office and when it was approved.
12. We have gone through the condonation petition wherein it is specifically stated that the opposite parties received the impugned judgment in time and the same was also communicated to the corporate office situated at Gurgaon, Haryana in time. Nowhere in the petition stated when the corporate office after receipt of the impugned judgment directed their Counsel to prepare the appeal and when the appeal was prepared and sent to corporate office for approval except the ground that the appellants were in the process of locating a local lawyer in Agartala to represent the appellants in the present appeal, no other reasonable grounds are mentioned in the condonation petition. It is also not mentioned that when the appellant-opposite parties were in process of locating a local lawyer in Agartala. There is no doubt that the ‘sufficient cause’ has to be considered liberally subject to the explanation is reasonable. It is also by this time held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that day-to-day explanation is not necessary, but explanation must be reasonable. The appellant-opposite parties is not a rustic litigant, rather an eminent company who are appearing in so many matters before the so many Courts including the Consumer Courts. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are not aware how to explain the delay in a condonation petition. Purchase of demand draft on 16.01.2017 for deposit the statutory deposit itself shows that the opposite parties are very much aware about the statutory limit of preferring an appeal and they could have contacted with their Station Manager at Agartala for engaging a lawyer instead of taking any other process of locating a local lawyer in Agartala as stated in Paragraph-4 of the condonation petition.
13. After perusal of the condonation petition we are of the considered opinion that the appellant-opposite parties were not so serious for preferring appeal in time and not only that, no reasonable explanation has been given in the condonation petition except what stated in the preceding paragraph of this order.              
14. ‘Sufficient cause’ is the cause for which the opposite parties could not be blamed for their filing of appeal in time. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. In other way, it can be said that "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide 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".
15. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression, 'sufficient cause' though deserves to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellants of adjudication of their grievances on the merits of their appeal for causes beyond their reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellants. There is no hard and fast rules, what should be the 'sufficient cause' in a given case.
16. We have gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan (supra) wherein the appellant of that case was the defendant in the suit which was filed by the respondent therein and was decreed ex parte on 28.10.1991 and the appellant on coming to know of the decree moved an application to set it aside, but the application was dismissed for default on 17.02.1993. The appellant moved for having that order set aside only on 19.08.1995 for which a delay of 883 days was noted and the said delay was condoned by the Trial Court, but a single Judge of the High Court of Madras who heard the revision, expressed the view that the delay of 883 days in filing the application has not been properly explained and thereafter, the appellant had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Apex Court considering the facts of that case allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court by restoring the order passed by the Trial Court but on a condition that appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent within one month from the date of judgment. In that case, admittedly, the order was passed ex parte against the appellant therein, but in the instant case, appellant-opposite parties not only contested the case but also examined one witness, more so, there is no explanation when the appellant-opposite parties receipt the impugned judgment and when they contacted with their Ld. Counsel for preparation of the memo of appeal and when they tried to contact with the local lawyers.
17. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue pertaining to condonation of delay observed as follows:-

 “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.”

Again, in Cicily Kallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts /Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute(s).

5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.

6. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay”.

In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has highlighted that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, the Court must bear in mind the object of expeditious disposal of consumer disputes which would get defeated if the Court was to entertain highly belated petitions.

18. The contention of the appellant that the delay caused due to departmental involvement cannot be a sufficient ground to condone the delay. Delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity, rather there is proff of sufficient cause, discretion for condonation of delay cannot be exercised. In view of the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Court, more so, there is no proper explanation regarding the delay caused in preferring appeal.
19. There is no doubt that an application for condonation of delay has to be examined liberally subject to ‘sufficient cause’ is shown. The explanations which have been given in the condonation petition for delay in filing the appeal, are not at all satisfactory, rather according to us, the appellant-opposite parties have failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal properly as required under law particularly in proviso 2 of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.
20. In view of the decision in Anshul Aggarwal and Cicily Kallarackal (supra) this Commission is of the considered view that condonation in preferring an appeal regarding a Civil Appeal or Revenue Appeal cannot be considered as precedent, as in Consumers Protection Act special period of limitation has been prescribed for preferring appeals and revisions in a consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated, if a highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Fora is accepted.

For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the connected appeal has not been properly explained as required and the same is also not bona fide. Accordingly, the condonation petition is dismissed and in consequent thereto, the appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura