HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with complaint case No. CC/274/2016.
- Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant.
- The office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 257 days.
- Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and also carefully perused the application for condonation of delay.
- Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and on perusal of the record it appears to me that in the application the reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that the appellant aged about 76 years has been suffering from respiratory tract infection on and from early 2019 and her health condition has extremely deteriorated over time and the appellant was also detected with osteoporosis and spondylosis and multi nodular goitre and has been bed ridden for a long period of time.
- I have gone through the medical papers (Annexure ‘B’) and found that there is no whisper in the said medical papers that the appellant was bed ridden and she was unable to move and she was advised by the medical officers to take complete bed rest. Therefore, I find that the grounds of delay as mentioned in the application for condonation of delay is not believable and acceptable.
- Moreover, it appears to me that the appellant has explained in the application for condonation of delay that the appellant came to know about the order dated 21.09.2022 in the first week of June, 2023 after receiving the notice in connection with execution application being No. 75 of 2022 filed by the opposite party. On consideration of the same I hold that the appellant has filed the instant appeal only to get rid of from the execution case. Therefore, it may be held that the cause shown is insufficient.
- 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.”
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 1 (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.”
- 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.
- 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.”
12. In view of the above decisions and under this facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 257 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.
13. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.
14. The appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.
15. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
