IA 11557 of 2018 (exemption from filing the certified copy)

                   The Application has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.

-2-

IA 11559 of 2018 (exemption from filing the typed copies of documents)

                   The Application has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.

IA 11560 & 11561 of 2018 (placing additional documents, c/delay)

IA 11561 of 2018 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing IA 11560 of 2018.

The Application is allowed and the delay in filing IA 11560 of 2018 is condoned.

IA 11560 of 2018 has been filed seeking permission to place on record additional documents.  The Application is allowed.

Revision Petition

By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1254 of 2017 whereby their Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, against the order dated 24.04.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Dinajpur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.39 of 2016, was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant had failed to explain the delay of 182 days in filing of the Appeal.  

2.       The case of the Petitioner before the State Commission, in brief, was that though the impugned order was passed on 24.04.2017 by the District Forum, the Advocate on the panel of the Petitioner did not supply the certified copy of the same and that the District Forum had handed over the free copy

-3-

of the impugned order to the concerned Advocate only on 13.06.2017 which was sent by the Counsel to the Appellant on 22.06.2017 which thereafter was forwarded to Chennai Headquarters of the Appellant on 01.07.2017.  After following the prescribed procedure, the Appeal could be filed only on 28.11.2017. 

3.       These grounds and reasons given in the Application for condonation of delay were found insufficient by the State Commission to explain the delay for the purpose of condonation of the delay. 

4.       This order has been challenged on the ground that the State Commission has not appreciated the facts correctly and has failed to consider the fact that the free copy was dispatched only on 13.06.2017 and the Advocate of the Petitioner dispatched the letter informing that the award had been passed against the Petitioner, only on 22.06.2017; that the Petitioner had received free copy of the order along with letter of lower court Advocate only on 01.07.2017 and that there was no fault on the part of the Petitioner and the delay had occurred on account of the act of their Counsel.

5.       I have given due consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel.  The grounds given by the Appellant in the Application supporting their Appeal for condonation of delay are reproduced as under:

“3.      That your Petitioners state that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on April 24, 2017, however, the certified copy was made available to the Learned Advocate on Record on 13^th June, 2017 and the same was finally received by the Petitioner at their Head Office at Chennai on July 1^st, 2017.

4.       That you Petitioner states that thereafter the Petitioner being a Company and bound by myriad auditable procedures, had to take appropriate steps to prepare all papers particularly, the Statutory Demand Draft for the prescribed amount for handing

-4-

over of the same to the Learned Advocate on Record appearing in connection with the Appeal.

5.       That your Petitioner states that upon having complied with the aforesaid procedures as stated above, all papers along with the statutory Demand Draft was transmitted by the Petitioners which reached the office of our Learned Advocate on Record appearing on behalf of the Petitioner at Kolkata only on 25^th July, 2017.  Thereafter the Appeal was drafted and sent to the legal department of the Petitioner who gave their confirmation by 7^th August 2017, however, the learned Advocate on record could not be reached since he was unavailable owing to personal reasons and could only be contacted after the holidays of Janmashtami and Independence Day, and as such the said Appeal could not be filed within the limitation period despite the Petitioners best efforts.”

6.       It is noteworthy that in the entire Application, the Petitioner had not disclosed the number of days by which the Appeal was delayed.  The grounds taken by the Petitioner in the Application seeking condonation of delay, which are also reproduced as above, do not give any convincing and sufficient explanation for the delay.  Shifting the entire burden on the shoulders of the learned Counsel who was representing the Petitioner is not sufficient ground.  The law requires that the parties itself should be vigilant about their case.   The State Commission has also observed certain facts as under:

                    “Lastly, if we are to trust the contention of the Appellant as gospel truth, then it would appear that a considerable time was wasted in moving the file from one office to another.  There is                 no reason to believe that branch offices of the Appellant are not connected with their H.O. through computer network.  It is indeed surprising that despite finding that the statutory period of moving the Appeal got over long ago, they did not opt for sending the requisite documents through mail, thereby saving crucial time.”

7.       These facts clearly show that the Petitioner had been acting in a very casual manner while dealing with such serious matters related to consumers.  There is no doubt that the law requires that while dealing with the matters related to condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petitions/Appeals, Courts

-5-

have to act liberally but where the delay is unexplained and is not convincing and no sufficient cause is shown, the courts are also justified in rejecting the Revision Petitions/Appeals.  In “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matter of condonation of delay 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 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.”

8. The Hon’ble Court in another case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC),  has clearly laid down the guidelines and the basic test which the court has to apply while dealing with the matters related to condonation of delay, to judge whether the Petitioner had acted with reasonable diligence or not.  The Hon’ble 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.”

-6-

9.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” that the courts have to keep in mind the object of the Act while dealing with the special provision of limitation prescribed under the Act.  In relation to the period of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Hon’ble court has 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."

10.     The Petitioner has been unable to show any cogent reason for delay.   From the explanation/reasons given for condonation of delay, it is apparent that it is usual causal dealings in the office of the Petitioner which had caused

the delay.  The State Commission has correctly observed that the final orders are uploaded on the websites and so it cannot be presumed that till the time the Advocate of the Petitioner informed them about the disposal of the case they were unaware of the same.  The law helps the informed vigilant litigants and not the one who are lazy.  I find no merit in the Revision Petition.  The same is dismissed.