HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit – IV at Sealdah ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/204/2022.
- 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 93 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 reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that the appellant had been suffering from physical disorder for which the appellant was under continuous observation as suggested by the doctor. To prove the case two prescriptions have been filed by the appellant.
- Therefore, on consideration of the application for condonation of delay and the two prescriptions I find that the only cause shown for the delay is that the complainant was suffering from physical disorder.
- On perusal of the said two prescriptions it is found that in the prescriptions names of some medicines have been mentioned. There is no whisper in the said prescriptions about the case history of the patient. I also cannot get any doctor’s advice for any inability of normal daily works from the said two prescriptions. There is also no whisper in the said two prescriptions as well as the application for condonation of delay that the appellant was completely bed ridden and was unable to move and the doctor advised him to take complete bed rest. Therefore, it can be said 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 93 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.
