HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12/05/2023 passed by the Learned Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-III in connection with consumer case No. CC/119/2023.

2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant seeking the following reliefs :-

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to condone the unintentional and bonafide latches i.e. 57 days (from the date of knowledge and exclude the statutory period) delay in preferring the instant appeal after accepting the causes shown as sufficient and reasonable and may further be pleased to pass such order or orders as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.”

3. I have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties on the application for condonation of delay at length and in full and carefully perused the record and the application for condonation of delay and its written objection.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to me that in the application the reason given for the delay in filing the appeal is that the appellant came to know about the impugned order and applied for certified copy of the order on 23/11/2023.

5. Another reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that the appellant was ill and due to her ill health the appellant was not able to visit the office of the Advocate and she sent her agent who visited the office of the Advocate and made some corrections on factual grounds. The Learned Advocate handed over the same to the agent for signing the petition. After signing the said petition the agent of the appellant handed over the same to the said Advocate.

6. On going through the record it appears to me that the present consumer case was filed by the appellant / complainant and the said consumer case was disposed of on 12/05/2023. Since the complaint was filed by the complainant and it was disposed of by the Commission on 12/05/2023, therefore, the impugned order was within the knowledge of the complainant. Therefore, the reason as stated that she came to know about the impugned order after long time of 12/05/2023 and applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 23/11/2023 is not believable and acceptable.

7.  On going through the record and the medical papers filed by the appellant it appears to me that the appellant was treated by the doctors on 09/09/2023 and 03/12/2023 and the appellant has filed two xerox copies of two prescriptions. On going through the said two prescriptions, it appears to me that the appellant was treated by the doctors but the doctors did not advise her to take bed rest. There is no whisper in the said two prescriptions that the appellant was unable to move at all. So, the another ground that she was ill and due to her illness there is a delay in filing the appeal is not cogent and acceptable.

8. From the materials placed on record I do not find sufficient cause as made out for the condonation of delay of 282 days in filing the present appeal.

9. I think 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.

10. 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.”

11. 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.”

12. 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.

13. 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.”

14. In view of the above decisions and under this facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 282 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

15. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in support of his argument has relied upon the judgment reported in (1999) 2MLJ 616 and unreported judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in connection with Case Nos. GA No. 3817 of 2000, GA No. 2030 of 2009, GA No. 2447 of 2009, GA No. 3015 of 2009 and CS No. 309 of 2006. However, reliance on these two judgments in the adjudication of the case, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.

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

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

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