HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. The present  appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants against the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata Unit-IV at Sealdah (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No.CC/119/2022.
2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed. The office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 83 days.
3. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties  and on careful perusal of the record and the application for condonation of delay it appears to me that in the application the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal  are that the order was passed on 31.08.2023  and thereafter, the appellants/complainants approached to the learned Advocate on 15.09.2023 for next course of action. The learned Advocate was somehow busy with  his  professional work. As such, after a few days, the learned Advocate after going through the impugned order advised to the appellants to prefer an appeal. Thereafter, the appellants made arrangements of the relevant documents and visited the learned Advocate on 29.09.2023 and handed order all the relevant documents to him. All on a sudden the learned Advocate went out of station on 11.10.2023 due to emergency call from his native place. After Puja Vacation the appellants came to the chamber of the learned Advocate and asked for measurement of the said flat  of the owner’s allocation. Accordingly, the appellants  appointed one Sk. Habib Hossain, LBS, Clause I to measure the area of the subject flat. Subsequently, decision was taken on the subject matter. As such, appellant sought for an appointment of Mr. Abhijit Mondal, learned Advocate for a conference and a conference was fixed  on 29.11.2023. Thereafter, learned Advocate Mr. Abhijit Mondal took about 15 days to prepare the draft of memo of appeal. As such, the delay took place  for 83 days for filing the instant appeal.
4. From the above reason as stated by the appellant it appears to me that the learned Advocate took much time for preparation and filing of the instant appeal under hearing. In spite of that the appellant did not change the said lawyer to file the present appeal in time. After lapse of several days the appellant changed the lawyer and filed the appeal.
5. Under these facts and circumstances, I hold the reason as stated by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay is not believable and acceptable. Therefore, the causer shown is not sufficient, convincing and believable.
6. 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 causehas been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matterof 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 enquirewhether 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.”

7. 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 theCourt has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stand 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.”

8. In another case reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578 (Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority), the Hon’ble Apex Court 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.
9. 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.”

10. In view of the above decisions and under  these facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 83 days. The present Appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse  the process of law.
11. The application for condonation of delay is   accordingly dismissed.
12. The Appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.
13. The Appeal is, thus, disposed of, accordingly.