PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. There is a delay of 860 days in filing the first appeal before the State Commission. It is unfortunate that the petitioner has not taken care to file the application for condonation of delay, filed before the State Commission. This shows negligence on the part of the Advocate. However, the State Commission has explained the delay in para No. 2 of the impugned order, which is reproduced as follows:- “2. The petitioner/appellant/opposite party, in the affidavit, contended that the petitioner’s office situated in Chennai and one T. Senthil Kumar, was assigned with to deal with the case not having legal background without taking care of the case and giving proper instructions regarding the filing of written version, proof affidavit, etc., he left the job during August 2011 and also he had engaged the advocate in the E.P. proceedings without taking steps to file appeal and thereby the petitioner was not aware of the earlier details of the case and only in February 2012 they were able to get the details and taken steps to the appeal and thereby delay of 860 days in filing the appeal is caused which is to be condoned.” 2. This is a lame excuse. Even if the story propounded by the petitioner is taken as true, it is not understood as to why steps were not taken after Mr. T.Senthil Kumar left the job during August 2011. Petitioner should have taken the care for all the litigation left by him in learch. This is a huge delay of 860 days and no cogent and plausible explanation is coming forth. The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act. There must be some cause that must be sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case. It should have posted itself about each next date of hearing. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities:- 3. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “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 Foras”. 4. Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045. 5. The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is vexatious and frivolous and has wasted the valuable time of this Commission, therefore we dismiss the same with costs of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. The said costs be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under Section 12 (3) read with Rule 10(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by way of demand draft in favour of ‘Pay & Accounts Officer- Ministry of Consumer Affairs, payable at New Delhi’, within 90 days, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. To make the procedure easy, petitioner can deposit the demand draft with the Registrar of this Commission, who will further transmit the demand draft to the concerned Ministry. |
