Order No. 6 date: 15-05-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition filed on behalf of the Appellant.

It is the case of the Appellant that following pronouncement of impugned order on 30.03.2016, certified copy thereof was obtained on 04.04.2016.  It is further stated that the Ld. Advocate, who represented the Appellant before the Ld. District Forum submitted the certified copy of impugned order to the Office of the Appellant on 20.04.2016 and on 25.04.2016, the entire case record was handed over to the Regional Office of the Appellant by the concerned Ld. Advocate.  Following this, the Legal Department sent the said documents and case record to its Pune Office, who in turn sought for certain clarifications from the concerned Ld. Advocate on 08.05.2016 which was provided on 10.05.2016.  On the basis of said information, the Legal Cell concerned decided to move an Appeal and sent the case file to its Kolkata office for doing the needful.  Ultimately, the Appeal was filed on 26.10.2016.

On scrutiny, it appears that the Appellant has attributed the delay primarily to the various predicaments of its Ld. Advocate, be it treatment of the wife of Ld. Advocate or his own illness or closure of Ld. Advocate’s office due to summer recess or Puja vacation in the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.  That apart, alleged resignation of Zonal Legal Manager also stated to have stretched the limitation petition further.

In this regard, it bears mentioning here that it is the settled position of law that compulsion of Ld. Advocate cannot be considered as ‘sufficient cause’ to justify delayed filing of an Appeal.

We are fully aware of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court through its catena of judgments opined that for proper administration of justice, a liberal approach should be taken while considering delay condonation petitions.  However, having opined so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also cautioned that the extent of liberal construction should not be such that it may totally ignore the public policy on which the Law of Limitation hinges and thereby defeat the very purpose of the Law of Limitation.

In the matter of Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, reported in 2 (2012) 8 SCC 524, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “if there is no sufficient cause, inordinate delay would amount to substituting the period of limitation prescribed by statute. Therefore, outcome of such judgment is simple that for condonation of delay there must be sufficient cause, thus it cannot be said that delay cannot be condoned even if there is sufficient cause”.

While the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 envisage speedy disposal of cases, it is imperative that parties to the case act to the true spirit of this beneficial legislation.  Therefore, if we show undue flexibility in dealing with such petitions, surely we would do disservice to the nation at large.  The law may be harsh, but it’s the law.  Therefore, while the Act stipulates that ‘sufficient cause’ should be shown to justify delayed filing of an Appeal that has to be shown.  There is no other way out.

Alleged resignation of Zonal Legal Manager or constraint of Ld. Advocate by any means cannot be treated as force majeure to slip the threshold limit of filing an Appeal by 177 days (excluding the statutory period of limitation).

Accordingly, we cannot take a favourable view in respect of the petition seeking condonation of delay.  The same is, accordingly, rejected.  Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation