HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Berhampore, Murshidabad in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/98/2015. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the appellant.

2. We have heard the Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties on the application for condonation of delay.

3. Also carefully perused the record.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has urged that there is a delay of 27 days excluding the statutory period to file the appeal.

5. He has further urged that the appellant was ill and his health condition was not good for which he could not come to Kolkata.

6. He has further urged that the impugned order was passed on 26.09.2022 and the appellant came to know about the order on 28.09.2022 as the order was not finalized on 26.09.2022. Due to Puja vacation the appellant failed to apply for a certified copy and the same was applied on 14.10.2022. The certified copy of the impugned order was ready on 17.10.2022 and on getting the same the appellant has decided to contact his Kolkata Advocate. As some serious patients were admitted under him the appellant could not come to Kolkata to brief the complex medical matter to his Advocate. In such a situation, the appellant has prayed for condonation of delay.

7. On the other hand, the respondent in person appeared and submitted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 27 days. The delay in filing is intentional. The appellant has filed the instant appeal only to harass the respondent in this case. The respondent has prayed for dismissal of the condonation application.

8. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent in person and on perusal of the record it appears to us that the office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 27 days. It also appears to us that the judgment of this case was passed on 26.09.2022 and the present appeal has been filed on 25.11.2022.

9. Now, we shall have to consider as to whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed. To adjudicate this issue we deem it appropriate to refer section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which runs as follows :-

”15. Appeal. – Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount of twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less:”

10. On perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it is clear to us that the appeal against the order should be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. On perusal of the record produced before us it is clear that the impugned order was passed on 26.09.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 25.11.2022 i.e. after a delay of 27 days. The office has also submitted a report before this Commission that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 27 days. In order to condone the delay of the said 27 days, the appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the statutory period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under :-

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The appellant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose”.

11. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under :-

“12. ………….. we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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 the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained.

From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble National Commission, it is clear that ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any ‘sufficient cause’ from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.”

12. Reverting to the materials available before us para Nos. 2 to 5 of the application for condonation of delay is the explanation given by the appellant for the delay caused in filing the appeal. To explain the said delay the appellant has stated that judgment was passed on 26.09.2022. However, the appellant came to know about the order on 28.09.2022. The appellant has further stated in the said application that the appellant was ready on 17.10.2022 on getting certified copy and decided to contact his Learned Advocate but as some serious patients were admitted under him, the appellant could not come to Kolkata to brief the complex medical matter to his Advocate. The appellant has further stated that the appellant started feeling unwell from 20.10.2022 and consulted a consultant physician who suspected typhoid and treatment was started. Due to the health condition of the appellant, the appellant could not come to Kolkata and sign in the petition. As such, there is delay.

13. On careful perusal of the record it appears to us that the appellant on getting notice entered appearance in this case and contested the case. Therefore, he had full knowledge about the date of pronouncement of the order which was scheduled on 26.09.2022. The averments of the petition that the appellant came to know about the order on 28.09.2022 from his Advocate is not correct one. This apart, the appellant did not file any paper and / or documents to show that some serious patients were admitted under him and as such he failed to come to Kolkata to brief the complex medical matter to his Advocate.

14. To prove the case, the appellant has filed xerox copy of one prescription dated 01.11.2022, 07.11.2022, 17.11.2022 which proves that the appellant was treated under Dr. Habibur Rahaman on 01.11.2022, 07.11.2022 and 17.11.2022 but in the petition of complaint the appellant has stated that the appellant started feeling unwell on 20.10.2022 and consulted a consultant physician who suspected typhoid and treatment was started and due to health condition of the appellant, the appellant could not come to Kolkata and sign in the petition. The appellant has failed to produce any paper to show that the appellant started feeling unwell from 20.10.2022 and he was bed-ridden from 20.10.2022 till 01.11.2022 and was unable to move.

15. The plea taken by the appellant is not convincing and believable at all and the said plea, prima facie, appeared to have been made with the intention to mislead the Commission to get the condonation petition allowed at the time of admission stage itself.

16. In the result, the submission of the appellant to the effect that the appellant was feeling unwell from 20.10.2022 and that he came to know about the order on 28.09.2022 and some serious patients were admitted under him and he failed to come to Kolkata to brief the complex medical matter to his Advocate are nothing but an attempt to mislead the Commission.  The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in support of his various arguments has relied on the judgment reported in 1987 AIR 1353 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in connection with revision petition No. 673 of 2018. However, reliance of these two judgments in the adjudication of this case, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.

17. In view of the above, we find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 27 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation.

19. The appeal is thus disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the I.A. Application being No. IA/590/2023 stands disposed of .