JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING 1. This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( substituted now) (for short ‘the Act’) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.08.2013 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (for short, “the State Commission”) in First Appeal no. 1703 of 2013 of the petitioner whereby Appeal of the Petitioner against the order dated 12.07.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Azamagarh (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Case No. 67 of 2010, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent ( hereinafter called as the ‘çomplainant’) had filed a complaint alleging certain deficiencies on the part of the petitioner, before the District Forum. District Forum issued notice of the complaint to the petitioner but the petitioner did not appear and vide ex parte order dated 12.07.2011, the District Forum allowed the complaint and issued certain directions. 3. The order of District forum was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal No. 1703 of 2013 before the State Commission. The said appeal was filed with the delay of about two years. The appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation. 4. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission has observed that appellant was required to explain the delay of every day and that they had failed to explain any such delay. By relying on the decisions of this Commission in Mahendra and Mahendra Financial Services Limited Vs. Naresh Singh (2013) CPJ 407 (NC), U.P.Avas Vikas Parishad Vs. Bridge Kishore Pandey IV (2009) CPJ 217 (NC), Delhi Development Authority Vs.V.P.Narayan IV (2011) CPJ 155 (NC) and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashul Agarwal Vs. Noida IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) , the State Commission dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. 5. This order is impugned before me on the ground that impugned order is illegal. It is argued that the State Commission has failed to consider that appeal was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the order of the District Forum, copy of which the petitioner had received on 01.07.2013. It is also alleged that petitioner was never served of the complaint. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant record. 7. The petitioner has placed on record the copies of the record of the State Commission. From perusal of the record of the State Commission filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that this record does not contain the certified copy of any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. In order to assess the validity of the impugned order, it was essential that copy of the said application ought to have been placed before this Commission in the present revision petition. From the ordersheet dated 18.07.2016, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had sought time and opportunity to place on record the copy of the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission. The relevant order is reproduced as under: “The respondent has stated that he had not received a sum of Rs.7,500/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) which was directed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent for his travelling and allied expenses vide order dated 11.12.2014. Petitioner has just handed over Rs.7,500/- to the respondent who is present in person. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was non-suited because there was a delay of two years in filing of the appeal. The application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission is not on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file copy of application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission. Be filed within four weeks. List on 23.01.2017.” 8. It is apparent from the order dated 17.11.2017 of this Commission that the petitioner did not file on record copy of the application for condonation of delay and sought more time and while granting time, cost of Rs.2000/- was imposed. Relevant ordersheet is reproduced as under: “Dated : 17th November, 2017 On 18th July 2016, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner was non-suited because there was a delay of two years in filing the appeal. As the application for condonation of delay was filed before the State Commission was not on record, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought four week time to file copy of the application. In spite of innumerable opportunities given, the same has not been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He seeks further two week time to file the same. The same is allowed, subject to cost of Rs.2,000/-. Cost be paid to the respondent by way of demand draft within four weeks. List the matter on 26th February 2018.” 9. Despite taking the opportunity subject to cost, petitioner failed to file copy of application for condonation of delay and sought further time on 26.02.2018. The ordersheet dated 26.02.2018 is reproduced as under: “Dated : 26th February, 2018 Counsel for the petitioner seeks further two weeks’ time to file the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission. The previous cost of Rs.2,000/- has not been paid to the respondent. He may file the application for condonation of delay within two weeks subject to a further cost of Rs.5,000/-. The total amount of Rs.7,000/- to be paid to the respondent by the petitioner by way of demand draft within two weeks. This is a last opportunity is being given. List on 11.10.2018.” 10. It is also apparent from this ordersheet that previous cost of Rs.2000/- was not paid by the petitioner. While giving one more opportunity to the petitioner, further cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed and last opportunity was given for filing copy of application for condonation of delay. Till date, neither the said cost has been paid by the petitioner nor the copy of the application for condonation of delay, filed by the petitioner before the State Commission in its appeal, has been placed on record of this revision petition. Instead, the learned counsel argued that no application seeking condonation of delay was moved before the State Commission and State Commission had dealt with the issue of condonation of delay based on the affidavit of Mr Saurabh Dalmia, proprietor of the petitioner. This argument of the learned counsel contradicts its earlier stand taken before this Commission wherein several opportunities were sought for filing on record the copy of the application for condonation of delay which was moved before the State Commission. No affidavit is filed to the effect that no such application was moved before State Commission in appeal. When no such application was moved before the State Commission and the delay is not explained, the State Commission is right in dismissing the appeal being bared by limitation. State Commission has rightly observed that sufficient reasons for condonation of delay had not been explained. In the affidavit of Mr. Saurabh Dalmia, proprietor of the petitioner, which had been filed before the State Commission, wherein explanation for delay had been given, there is no explanation regarding day to day delay. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that delay of two years ought to have been condoned by the State Commission for the reason that petitioner was not aware of the pendency of any complaint against him and passing of any order by the District Forum and for the first time, the petitioner learnt of the order of the District Forum only on 01.07.2013. On inquiry, counsel has shown his inability to disclose the manner in which information on 01.07.2013 was received by the petitioner. Even in the affidavit of Mr. Saurabh Dalmia, proprietor of the petitioner filed before the State Commission, manner in which the information on 01.07.2013 was supplied to the petitioner, has not been disclosed / narrated. Even in the present revision petition, the petitioner is silent about the manner in which he had received information on 01.07.2013 of the order of District Forum. 12. Apparently, there is no proof that petitioner had actually received the information of the passing of the order against him by the District Forum on 01.07.2013. In absence of any such proof, this Commission find difficult to accept the argument that information was actually received only on 01.07.2013 and that was date on which the petitioner learnt for the first time of the complaint being filed against him in which an order has been pronounced against him ex parte. There is no contention that address of the petitioner in the complaint was wrong. It is mandatory on the part of every fora to send the free copy of the orders to the parties to a complaint or an appeal or revision. Presumption is that such a copy must also have been sent to the petitioner. There is no averment that no information from District Forum was ever sent to him or received by him. It is also apparent that copy of the affidavit of the proprietor of the petitioner which was allegedly filed by the petitioner before the State Commission seeking condonation of delay, and is placed before this Commission is not a certified copy. It is not verified that it is the same document which was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission. It is apparent that initially the petitioner has said that he had filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, before the State Commission and repeatedly sought time to file copy of that application, however, today during the course of arguments, learned counsel has submitted that no such application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed before the State Commission and only an affidavit of the proprietor of the petitioner was filed explaining the delay. It is apparent that this affidavit is also not a certified copy. Conduct of the petitioner is quite evident and I do not want to reflect upon it any more. 13. Vide order dated 23.01.2019, this Commission has clearly observed that in case the cost remains unpaid, he would be non-suited and even after this observation one more opportunity was given to the petitioner for making payment of the cost and it was observed that he would be non suited for non compliance. Still the cost has remained unpaid. He could have been non suited on this ground alone. Since I have heard arguments on the revision petition, I could have proceeded to decide the present revision petition on the basis of arguments furnished by the counsel for the petitioner. The appeal could have been dismissed for this reason as well. 14. It is settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the party seeking condonation needs to explain the delay of each and every date by showing sufficient causes which prevented it to approach the Commission within stipulated period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held as under: “12. 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.” 15. In another case, “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24” Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the criteria to determine whether the reasons given by the party are sufficient for condonation of delay or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: "5. 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.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has again warned the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to keep in mind the special provisions of limitation provided under the Act while dealing with application for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” has held as under: “5. 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." 17. In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Revision Petition has no merit. Same is dismissed with no order as costs. | 
