HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/34/2021.

2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellants. This office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 55 days.

3. Heard the Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties over the application for condonation of delay at length and in full.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the application for condonation of delay it appears to me that the appellants have stated the cause of delay in filing the appeal in paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the application for condonation of delay.

5. The appellants have stated in the application that the appellants were unaware about the entire case proceeding as well as the said final order and knowledge gathered by them on 25.04.2023 that they received the notice of execution petition from the District Commission, Howrah.

6. But on scrutiny of the impugned judgment and copy of daily order sheets passed by the Learned District Commission it appears to me that the notice of this case was duly served upon the opposite parties and non taking of steps from the end of the opposite parties, the case was ordered to be heard ex parte against the opposite parties. So, the contents of the application that the appellants were unaware about the entire consumer case proceeding as well as the final order is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Commission. I think that the said plea has been taken by the appellants only to get rid from the execution application being No. EA/26/2023 filed by the respondent. Therefore, the cause shown is not sufficient and convincing.

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 suffcient 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 55 days. The present application is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

12. The Learned Counsel for the appellants in support of his argument has relied on the unreported judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in connection with First Appeal No. 477 of 2021. However, reliance of this judgment in the adjudication of this appeal, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.

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

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

14. The appeal is thus disposed of accordingly.