JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      The Petitioners have challenged in the present Revision Petition, the order dated 08.12.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.140 of 2020.

2.      The chronology of the events is that the Respondent/Complainant had filed a Complaint No.55 of 2018 before the District Forum.  Vide Order dated 10.09.2019, the District Forum allowed the Complaint.  The Petitioners thereafter filed an Appeal No.140 of 2020 against the order of the District Forum.  Since this Appeal had been filed with a delay of               367 days, the Petitioners had also filed, along with their Appeal, a miscellaneous application no.748 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay of 367 days.

3.      Vide the impugned order the said application of the Petitioners was dismissed.  Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application and dismissal of the Appeal, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

4.      It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that they have a good case on merit and the State Commission has committed illegality and perversity and has acted in non-judicial manner, while dismissing their Appeal on merit.  It is further argued that there were sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the said Appeal and therefore, dismissal of the application M.A. No.748 of 2020 is also not justifiable and the impugned order needs to be set aside.  It is argued that in the application seeking condonation of delay the Petitioners had clearly stated that they had not received / lost / misplaced certified copies sent by the Forum through post to them and that they had applied for certified copy, after waiting for some time, on 21^st January, 2020 which was prepared on 10^th February, 2020.  It is submitted that the Appeal could be filed only by 12^th March, 2020.  It is submitted that there were sufficient reasons which prevented the Petitioners from filing the Appeal within the limitation.  It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Suo Moto in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, has extended the period of limitation during the corona period.  It is submitted that in view of this, the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay.  Therefore, the dismissal of the Appeal on this ground is not justifiable and order is liable to be set aside.  Learned Counsel has also addressed the arguments on merit of the case at length.

 5.     I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments and have perused the file.

6.      It is a settled proposition of law that when an Appeal or a Revision Petition or a complaint is barred by limitation and the forum is dismissing the said Complaint, Revision Petition or Appeal, on the ground that it had been filed beyond the period of limitation, it shall not give its findings on merit.  The forum is required to refrain itself from dealing with the merit of the case.  It is therefore unwarranted on the part of the State Commission to discuss at length the merit of the case of the Petitioners and thereby dismissing the Appeal on merit as well.  Since such findings on the part of the State Commission are unwarranted, the same shall be scored out from the impugned Order.

7.      The argument of learned Counsel that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay has to be judged in the light of principles of law governing condonation of delays.  In this case there was a delay of 367 days in filing the Appeal before the State Commission.  It is well settled proposition of law that the party who is seeking the condonation, has to show sufficient causes which prevented it from filing the appeal/revision within the period of limitation.  Simply because the proposition of law governing limitation, harshly affects a person or a party, is not a ground for condoning the delay.  The law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigor as prescribed by the statute.  The forums have no choice but to enforce the law.  A sufficient cause can be considered to be a such cause which had prevented the party to come to the forum within the period of limitation for the reasons which were beyond its control.  The party is required to act diligently all the time.  It is also required to explain the delay of each and every day. The party is also required to show that it has acted with reasonable diligence. In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that while dealing with the application seeking condonation of delay, the special period of limitation that has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act and the object of the Act which expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, shall be kept in mind and object of the Act should not be allowed to be defeated.  It has been so held:

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.”

8.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has defined the expression “sufficient cause” 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.”

9.       In another case, “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24” the 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.”

10.    Keeping in mind such principles, on examining the reasons given in the application filed before State Commission, seeking condonation of delay, it is apparent that the Petitioners have not acted diligently.  In para 8 of their application, it is admitted that they had the knowledge of the order of the District Forum dated 10.09.2019 and they had also prepared the Demand Draft No.149213 dated 17^th October, 2019 for depositing the statutory amount for filing the Appeal.  The Petitioners had therefore the knowledge of the District Forum’s Order on 10.09.2019 which fact is apparent from the preparation of DD dated 17^th October, 2019 for the deposit of the statutory amount needed to be deposited for filing the Appeal.  The plea taken is that the free copy of the impugned order was not available and the file with the Demand Draft got misplaced.  It is stated that they do not have any record of the receipt of the certified copy sent by the District Forum.  However, they do not say that they had not received the certified copy.  In the averment in para 2 of the application seeking condonation of delay, the Petitioners have made vague statements.  With no certainty the Petitioners had alleged that the free certified copy was not received by them.  Even otherwise when the Petitioners were aware of the Order dated 10.09.2019 of the District Forum in October, 2019 itself, that is why they took the decision of filing the Appeal and prepared the Demand Draft.  They could have taken the decision of filing the Appeal only after reading the order of the District Forum.  It shows that they did have received the free copy of the judgment in October 2019 and that is the reason that in their pleading and contentions, they are so vague regarding receipt of the free copy.  Even otherwise, if they had lost the free copy or had not received the certified copy, nothing had prevented them from applying for the certified copy at that time.  Instead of immediately applying for the certified copy, they had waited and had applied for it only on 21^st January, 2020.  This conduct of the petitioners shows their attitude which is highly casual.  This also shows that they have not been acting diligently.  Also the petitioners had failed to show any ground of such nature which was beyond their control and which had prevented them from filing the appeal within limitation. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the State Commission whereby the application seeking condonation of delay of 367 days in filing the appeal had been dismissed.  The findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the suo moto case supra are not appliable on the facts of this case since the period of limitation had already been expired. 

11.    In view of the above, the present Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.