HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 13/10/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer Case No. CC/64/2019.

2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant / opposite party No. 6. This office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 624 days.

3. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant at length and in full and carefully perused the application for condonation of delay.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and on perusal of the record including the application for condonation of delay it appears to me that in the application the reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that the appellant faulted for wrong advice and he had no knowledge about filing of the case and the appellant came to know about filing of the case and the impugned order on 18/04/2023 i.e. after 189 days of passing of the order while notice of the execution application bearing No. EA/35/2023 was served upon the appellant. Upon perusal of the record it appears to me that the respondent No. 1 filed the complaint case against the appellant and others and the said case was duly contested by the opposite party No. 2 Mr. Abhijit Bhave, the C.E.O., Karvy Wealth Management and the opposite party No. 3 Karvy Capital Ltd. The appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are all subsidiaries.

5. It is also found from the record that after filing of the case, notices were duly served upon the appellant, the opposite party No. 1, Karvy Private Wealth, the opposite party No. 2, Mr. Abhijit Bhave, CEO, Karvy Wealth Management and the opposite party No. 4, the Managing Director, Karvy Capital Ltd. but they failed to appear before this Commission to defend the complaint case or to adduce any evidence. As such, the case was proceeded ex parte against them. The opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 namely Mr. Abhijit Bhave, CEO, Karvy Wealth Management & Karvy Capital Ltd. appeared in this case and contested the case. Therefore, it may be concluded that the appellant and others had full knowledge about the filing of the case and about the execution case. The appellants were silent till the execution case was filed by the complainant. When the execution case was filed, then and there, the appellant appeared before this Commission and has filed the present appeal before this Commission. In the result, the submission of the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that the appellant got knowledge of the impugned order on 18/04/2023 is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Commission.

6. Another reason given for the delay of the appeal is that the appellant faulted for wrong legal advice. I fail to accept that the appellant faulted for wrong legal advice as because the appellant did not change the Lawyer though the Learned Advocate appointed for the appellant before the Learned Commission advised wrongly to the appellant. In spite of that the said Learned Lawyer on several occasions appeared before the case and proceeded the review application before the Learned District Commission.

7. Under these facts and circumstances, I find that the appellant has filed the instant appeal along with the application for condonation of delay only to get rid from the execution case. So, the cause shown by the appellant is not sufficient, believable and acceptable.

8. 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 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. 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.”

10. 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.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a case reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 430 (The State of U.P. v. Satish Chand Shivhare ) that once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation there can be no question or obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the appellant.

12. In another case reported in II (2014) CPJ 570 (NC) – (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. S. Shiva Shankar Rao) the Hon’ble National Commission held that in this case day to day delay was not explained, the cases are barred by limitation.

13. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant during his argument has relied on the judgments reported in 1987 SCC OnLine Bom 32, (1988) 2 Supreme Court Cases 142, (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107 and an unreported judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1562 of 2011. However, reliance on these four judgments in the adjudication of the appeal, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.

14. In view of the above decisions and under these facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 624 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

15. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. The appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.

16. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.