Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/858

P.G. GANESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision:09.08.2016

 

 

First Appeal No.858/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 03.03.2012 passed in Complaint Case No.717, 718 and 721 of 2008 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum(Central) New Delhi)

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Shri P.G. Ganesh,

F-4, Flat No.4764,

Alok Vihar, Sector – 50,

Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

                      ....Appellant

 

Versus

 

ICICI Bank,

2^nd Floor, Videocon Towers,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi -110055.

...Respondent

 

CORAM

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. Salma Noor, Member.

 

 

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1. The order under challenged in this appeal is dated 03.03.2012 passed by the District Forum –VIII, New Delhi in CC No.717, 718 and 721 of 2008.
2. Alongwith the appeal the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay of 178 days in filing the appeal. It is stated that the impugned order was received by the appellant/complainant on 16.04.2012 from the office of the District Forum. It is stated that in the first week of May 2012, the appellant consulted the counsel for filing the appeal against the impugned order, who advised him that it is a fit case for filing the appeal and asked him to come with fee. It is further stated that the counsel for the appellant was out of station in the month of May and June due to summer vacation and came back in the month of July. It is stated that since the appellant out of station in the month of July and August for some official and personal work and he fell ill in the mid of August, therefore, could contact his counsel in the last week of August. Thereafter the counsel prepared the appeal and filed before this Commission on 27.09.2012. In these circumstances delay of 178 days occurred. The application is supported with the affidavit of the appellant. However, there is no medical certificate to show that the appellant fell ill during the period stated above.
3.        The respondent was given several opportunities to file the reply to the application for condonation of delay, however, on 06.01.2016, the counsel appearing for the respondent stated that the respondent does not want to file reply to application for condonation of delay.
4. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/complainant, it would be useful to have a look in the law relating to condonation of delay.
5. It is well settled that “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.
6. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed 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 section 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 bonafide may fall for consideration: but the scope of the inquiry while exercising he discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the court may regard as relevant.”

 

7. Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that;

 

“There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.”

 

8. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavan eshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed 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. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under;

 

“We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.

 

The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration an d a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106”.

 

 

10. Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed;

“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”.

 

 

 

11. Observations made by Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay are absolutely false, frivolous and bogus in as much as there was no summer vacations in the court during the month of May. The appellant/complainant was not serious in pursuing his case as instead of filing the appeal, the appellant/complainant went out of station for two months where he allegedly fell ill. There is neither any explanation nor any documentary proof has been placed on record in this regard.
13. Thus, gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable to the appellant. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for condoning the long delay of 178 days in filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay under these circumstances is not maintainable and present appeal being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed.
14. Copy of this order be given to the parties and be also sent to the Ld. District Forum(West) for information and keeping it on record for compliance

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

•  

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Tri