1.      This Revision Petition No.3590 of 2016 challenging the impugned order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (‘State Commission’) dated 06.09.2016 whereby the State Commission dismissed the Misc. Application No.119 of 2016 in First Appeal No.249 of 2016 on the ground that the Appellant had not sufficiently demonstrated the reasons for delay of 65 days as bonafide.

2.      As per Office report, there is a delay of 3 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the IA No.13109 of 2016, the delay is condoned.

3.      The learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the State Commission erred while dismissing the Appeal on account of delay of 65 days in filing the same. This delay of 65 days was neither intentional nor malafide, rather bonafide due to the procedural delay and the same ought to have been condoned so as to decide the First Appeal on merits as the Petitioner has a good case on merits. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of the arguments:

(i) N. Balakrishan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, Civil Appeals No.45-76 of 1998, decided on 03.09.1998 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

(ii) TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Orissa State Co-operative Bank & Anr., IV (2012) CPJ 310 (NC).

4.      The Respondent, in his Written Arguments filed before this Commission, submitted that there is no sufficient cause being shown as having work load due to year ending of financial year cannot be sufficient ground for delay and also submitted in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission.  He has also sought to dismiss of the Revision Petition with costs.

5.      On perusal of record, it was found that the copy of Misc. Application No.119 of 2016 seeking condonation of delay of 65 days filed before the State Commission has not been placed on record by the Petitioner.

6.      As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal / Revision Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed:

“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.”

7.      The test to be applied while dealing with such cases 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.”

8.      In “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578” it was 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".

9.      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.”

10.    In Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), the NCDRC 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.”

11.    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.”

12.    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.

13.    In the present case, the Petitioner admittedly filed the Appeal before the State Commission with the delay of 65 days. He has stated in Para-J of the grounds of Revision Petition that the Appeal had been filed with procedural delay of 65 days, should have condoned the delay by penalizing the Petitioner with heavy costs instead of rejecting application for Condonation of delay which resulted in wrong dismissal of appeal. On perusal of the explanation rendered for the delay in filing the Appeal, I do not find any specific dates or necessary details have been mentioned in the grounds of the Revision Petition and also the Petitioner has not filed the copy of Misc. Application No.119 of 2016 filed before the State Commission as to when the matter was taken up for filing an Appeal and what was the reasons for not filing the Appeal within time. These details were essential for consideration for condoning the delay, and were not provided. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the learned State Commission has rightly not condoned the delay.

14.    In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned Order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the learned State Commission. Therefore, the present Revision Petition No.3590 of 2016 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 

15.    All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.