1.     As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 457 days in filing of this First Appeal. The Appellants have filed IA/4235/2023 seeking condonation of delay for 304 days. In the said IA, the learned counsel for the Appellants has stated that, the said Appeal was filed against the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned State Commission, Kerala in C.C. No.123/2016. As regards delay, he stated that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Appellants could not file the present Appeal in time. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons mentioned above. He, therefore, sought condonation of delay because the Appellants have good case on merits.  He relied on the following judgments:

(i) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and ors. Vs. Katiji and Ors., MANU/SC/0460/1987;

(ii) Hemlata Verma Vs. M/s.ICICI Prodential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.5131 of 2019, decided on 01.07.2019 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

(iii) Principal, L.D.R.P. Institute Technology and Research Vs. Apporv Sharma, R.P. No.2006 of 2019, decided on 11.10.2022 by the National Commission;

2.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation suspended the period of limitation for filing petitions/applications/ suits/appeals/all other quasi proceedings before any Courts/ Tribunals or any Authority due to Covid-19 Pandemic with effect from 15.03.2020 till 31.05.2022. 

3.     Therefore, there is a delay of 304 days in filing of the present Appeal.

4.    As regards scope for Condonation of delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has held that:

“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.”

5.    The test which is to be applied while dealing with such a case is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108” has held:

"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.”

6.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578” has also observed as under:-

“while deciding the application filed, for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and that the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated appeals and revision petitions are entertained".

7.    To condone such delay in filing, the Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ was explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 that:-

“9. 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”,  in as much 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 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”. 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 the 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 application is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”

8.    In Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), the NCDRC has held:-

“12……… we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggawal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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 the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained.”

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lingeswaran Etc. Vs Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal(C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022 has held that:-

“5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for  condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the 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. 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.”

10.  From the above orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear 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 and that the applicant must satisfy that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting its case. Unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, a Court should not normally allow the application for condonation of delay under this Act.

11. Examination of the material on record and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel reveals that the period of limitation commenced from the date, i.e., 01.06.2022 after excluding the suspended period of limitation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

12.  As regards the reasons for delay, the learned counsel for the Appellant had stated that the due to covid-19 pandemic, the Appellant could not file the present Appeal in time. Thus, there is a delay of 304 days. He stated that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the above reasons. He, therefore, sought the delay be condoned because the Appellants have good case on merits.

13. It is a clear position that the period of limitation in the present case commenced from 01.06.2022. However, the Appeal was filed on 31.03.2023. Thus, there is an inordinate delay of 304 days in filing the present Appeal which the Appellants need to explain. However, no sufficient cause has been brought out. The Appellant failed to show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required. In the instant case, the reasons stated are grossly inadequate to justify such long delay. There is no apparent justification for such undue delay while facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Appellants. The reasons explained do not reflect that the Appellants had taken the actions necessary under law in time.

14. With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Appellants failed to show sufficient cause for such undue delay in filing the present Appeal. Therefore, the prayer in Application filed by the Appellants seeking condonation of delay cannot be granted and accordingly, the same is disallowed on the above grounds.

15.  In view of the foregoing, the IA No.4235 of 2023 filed by the Appellants is disallowed. Consequently, the First Appeal No. 389 of 2023 is dismissed.

16. All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.