HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 09/01/2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer complaint case No. CC/246/2021.

2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellants. The office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 340 days.

3. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants at length and in full and also carefully perused the application for condonation of delay and its written objection thereto.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and on 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 after dismissal of the complaint case being No. CC/246/2021 the Learned Advocate has wrongly advised to file a restoration application praying for restoration of the case. Accordingly, the said application was filed before the Learned District Commission.

5. Another reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that after dismissal of the said restoration application, the appellants filed the appeal against the dismissal of the restoration application before the State Commission, on being misconception of law. As such, there is delay in filing of the appeal. On careful scrutiny of the record, the application for condonation of delay and its written objection I find that the complainants appointed the Learned Advocate under who’s instruction the complaint case was filed by the appellants. So, the story of misconception of law is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Commission. Moreover, the appellants have nowhere stated in the application for condonation of delay about the name of the Learned Advocate who wrongly advised the appellants to file the restoration application and appeal against the order of dismissal of the restoration of application. This apart, it appears to me that restoration application was dismissed on 21/11/2023 but the present appeal has been filed on 29/01/2024 i.e. after 69 days.

6. In the result, it may be concluded that the reason given for the delay in filing the appeal is not believable and acceptable. So, the cause shown is not sufficient.

7. 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.”

8. 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.”

9. 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.

10. 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.”

11. In view of the above decisions and under this facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 340 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

12. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.

13. The appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.

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