(ORAL)

The present First Appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2017 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Mumbai ( in short, the State Commission), whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant was allowed and appellant / opposite party was directed to pay sum of Rs.18,85,734/- alongwith cost of litigation for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and compensation of Rs. 19,10,734/- was awarded. The awarded amount was payable within 90 days failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.

2.         The appeal has been filed with delay of 105 days.  In the application, it is stated that order of the State Commission was received by the counsel of the appellant on 26.04.2017 and it was sent to the appellant on the same day, who received it on 02.05.2017.  Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate was engaged by the appellant to file the appeal and forwarded the file papers to her office on 26.05.2017.  There was some bereavement in the family of Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate and lot of work had accumulated in her office and, therefore, her associate, namely, Mr.Virender Kumar Prabhakar took the file of this case alongwith two more cases to his house for the preparation of the basic drafts and notes.  Since repair work was going on in his house, his mother kept the files in the almirah and forgot about that.  The appellant reminded the counsel about the case 2-3 times but file could not be traced and it could be traced only on 18.08.2017 when the appeal was prepared and was filed.  It is argued that counsel are human beings and error can happen on their part as well and that it was not deliberate and intentional.  It is argued  that delay of 105 days be condoned. 

3.         Counsel for the respondent has argued that delay is of 105 days and is deliberate and should not be condoned.

4.         I have heard both the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to their respective contentions.  There is no dispute to the settled proposition of law that while dealing with matters relating to condonation of delay in filing Appeals of Revisions, the Courts has to adopt liberal attitude.  It is also settled proposition of law that appellant or the petitioner has to explain the delay of each and every day by showing reasonable grounds and sufficient cause for such delay.   Where they succeed in doing so, the law requires that the Court shall adopt liberal attitude in condoning such delay.  However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held that even if there is proof of sufficient cause of delay, still the discretion lies with the Court and in appropriate cases, the Courts can exercise the discretion and where the Court is satisfied that parties have not acted with diligence or bonafidely, it can still refuse to condone the delay.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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.”

5.         In another case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the basic tests which are to be applied while ascertaining whether party has been able to explain the sufficient cause and whether they have acted with reasonable diligence or not.  The Supreme 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.”

6.         In another matter, while dealing with matters under the Act, Hon’ble Supreme court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,  has 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."

7.         In the present case, the copy of the impugned order was received by the counsel for the appellant on 26.04.2017 which was forwarded to the appellant, who received it on 02.05.2017.  As per the contentions in the application for condonation of delay, the file was sent to counsel Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate at her office address only on 26.05.2017. The period of limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days.  Calculating 30 days from the date when copy of the order was received i.e. from 26.04.2017, it is apparent that period of limitation expired on 25.05.2017.   The file of the case was forwarded by the appellant to his counsel only after expiry of period of limitation.  No reason of such delay has been given. 

8.         In view of this, I am satisfied that the appellant has failed to explain as to why appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation by showing reasonable grounds.   There is no ground for condoning the delay of 105 days.  Application   for condonation of delay is, accordingly, dismissed.  As a consequence, First Appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.