| Final Order / Judgement | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT - This appeal has been filed against the order and judgment dated 14/03/2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with Misc. Application No. M.A./20/2022 arising out of consumer case No. CC/385/2019.
- Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant. The office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 440 days.
- Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and also carefully perused the application for condonation of delay.
- Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and on careful perusal of the record it appears to me that in the application the reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that the appellant was seriously sick and was under medication for the treatment of uncontrolled blood sugar, hypertension, uric acid along with urinary distress and from time to time treated by several doctors and was compelled to confine in bed in consonance to doctor’s advice and consequently unable to establish contact with Mrs. Punam Singh, Advocate.
- Another reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that after knowing about the order of dismissal of the case he contacted with Mrs. Punam Singh, Advocate for determining the next course of action in connection with the complaint case and Mrs. Punam Singh, Advocate was in consonance with her advice decided to prefer an appeal against the final order and judgment dated 14/03/2023. However, Mrs. Punam Singh, Advocate was neither available in court nor in her chamber. After diligence that the appellant could able to meet with her clerk and from him he obtained information that due to severe family problems Mrs. Singh, Advocate became unable to take steps for filing of the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant in the month of April, 2023 met with Mrs. Punam Singh, Advocate, who informed that her husband became a political victim and her husband was under judicial custody for a reasonable period. Thereafter, in the month of May, Mrs. Punam Singh, Advocate advised to contact to Mrs. Suhani Hela, Advocate for obtaining the certified copies and in consonance to such advice, the appellant immediately contacted with Mrs. Hela, Advocate who, in turn, arranged for the certified copies and took necessary steps for filing of the present appeal.
- I have gone through the medical papers and found that there is no whisper in the said medical papers that the appellant was bed-ridden and he was unable to move and he was advised by the medical officer to take complete bed rest.
- In respect of another reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that the Learned Advocate Mrs. Punam Singh did not take proper steps for filing of the appeal in proper time. I find that the appellant did not take any steps to change the said Advocate Mrs. Punam Singh for filing the appeal in proper time though Mrs. Punam Singh, Advocate took several times for filing of the present appeal.
- Under these facts and circumstances, I find that the reasons of delay as mentioned in the application for condonation of delay is not believable and acceptable. So, the cause shown is insufficient.
- 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.” - 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.” - 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.
- The Hon’ble court has further 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.” 13. In view of the above decisions and under this facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 440 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law. 14. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. 15. The appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted. 16. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly. | |
