IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

       Date of Decision :   11.8.2014

First Appeal – 1163/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the

District Forum (North West) Shalimar Bagh,  Delhi in complaint case No. 1334/2011)

VS

CORAM

SALMA NOOR, Member

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

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

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

SALMA NOOR, MEMBER

            This appeal by the OP of the case No.1334/2011 is directed against the order dated 4.4.2014 of the CDRF North West District,, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide which the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization.  OP was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.

2.         The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.  According to the appellant there is a delay of 134 days in filing the appeal but the actual delay involved in filing of the appeal is of 112 days.

3.         We have heard Sh. Nitya Nand, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

4.         The reasons given by Counsel for the Appellant for this delay is reproduced below:-

“That the appellant receive the copy of order dated 4.4.2013 vide speed post dated 17.6.2013 and the same is received to him on 18.6.2013, in the end of June month the appellant sent the copy of order to its legal team for opinion.  The in house legal team sent the order to the advocates for the needful action with legal opinion in the month of July.  In the month of August the advocates sent their opinion to prefer appeal in the case to the appellant and in the month of Sept. the appellant directed the advocates to file the appeal.  In the last of October the present appeal has been drafted”.  The above delay is due to above reason only not the result of any willful default of the appellant. 

5.         The Delay due to official procedures does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such delay in filing the appeal.  The Law of limitation calls for explanation for each day delay after expiry of period of limitation, an explanation for delay has to be rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable.  Delay in official procedure is no exception provided in the proviso given under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for limitation. 

6.         In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari, 2009(2) Scale 108, it has been observed:

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petition stands properly examined.  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.

7.         Hon’ble Supreme Court after exhaustive considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Orien 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 to 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 statues 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 and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate – Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106”.

8.         Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed:

“It is also opposite 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”.

9.         The law of the Supreme Court followed by National Commission and this Commission in this regard is well settled.  Reference can be made to few of such cases cited below:

1. Delhi Development Authority vs. Gurinder Kaur Kohli-III 2010 CPJ 248 (NC)
2. HUDA vs Krishna Devi – III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
3. HUDA vs Randhir Singh– III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
4. Narayana I.I.T. Academy vs. R.K. Sharma –III 2010 191 (DSCDRC)

10.       Hence, the request for condoning the delay is turned down and the application for the purpose moved by the appellant is rejected.

11.       Consequently we dismiss the appeal on the ground of its being time barred.

12.     Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.