Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 11-12-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in CC/335/2017.

Case of the Appellant, in short, is that, notwithstanding he ventilated his grievance before the Respondent time and again, the latter did not show the bare minimum courtesy of acknowledging his complaint letter, let alone redress his grievance.  It is the further case of the Appellant that due to his advanced age (70 years) and his permanent residence being situated in Lucknow, he could not file the complaint case in time. Before filing the complaint case, he approached the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices for amicable settlement of the dispute on 22-11-2016.  However, citing technicality (limitation ground) in the matter, the Respondent refused to participate in the mediation process.  Claiming that the delay was totally unintentional, the Appellant prayed for allowing this Appeal.

We have heard both sides in the matter and gone through the documents on record.

It appears that the cause of action of the complaint case firstly arose on 17-08-2012, when the alleged discrepancy in the bills occurred.  Thereafter, the Appellant lodged complaint with the Respondent.  As it transpires, the Appellant lastly wrote a letter to the Respondent on 17-10-2012. Thereafter, in the year 2016, he lodged complaint before the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Govt. of West Bengal.  However, the Respondent vide its letter dated 05-06-2017 intimated the concerned Directorate office that the alleged claim was not maintainable as it was time barred.  Subsequently, the complaint case was filed.

There can be no manner of doubt that there was laxity on the part of the Appellant in moving the complaint case.  However, let us consider as to whether the delay was intentional or not.   

It is submitted by the Appellant that due to his advanced age and the long distance between his permanent house (Lucknow) and the office of the Respondent (Kolkata), he could not pursue the matter vigorously. 

On due consideration of the averment of the Appellant and counter-averment of the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent, we do not find any mala fide intention or deliberate lacunae on the part of the Appellant in filing the complaint case belatedly.

It is the settled position of law that while deciding technicalities like delayed filing of cases, a Court of Law must adopt liberal approach.  In this regard, the following authorities are worth mentioning.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baburao Deorao Wankhede vs. Sewa Sahakari Sanstha & Ors., 1989 Mah LR 1144 condoned 10 years delay observing that it was required to condone such delay as the impugned order caused grave injustice.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swaroop & Ors. v. Mool Chand & Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 132 observed that the laws of procedure by themselves do not create any impediment or obstruction in the matter of doing justice to the parties.

In Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 2 SCR 762, it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay, it is not necessary that the Applicant/Appellant has to explain whole of the period between the date of judgment till the date of filing of the Appeal.  It is sufficient that the Applicant/Appellant would explain the delay caused in the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the date on which the Appeal/application is actually filed.

In O. P Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh, 1984 4 SCC 66, a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. 

In Smt. Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra, 1987 Supp SCC 339, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 

On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the observation of Hon’ble Courts, as mentioned hereinabove, as also the driving spirit behind enactment of this beneficial legislation, we deem it appropriate to allow the Appeal by condoning the delay in filing the complaint case.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 21-01-2019 for expeditious adjudication of the case on merit.