This revision is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, “the State Commission”) Mumbai dated 22.8.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the miscellaneous application No.12/138 for condonation of delay

-2-

in filing of appeal as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum, Central Mumbai allowing the complaint against the petitioner/opposite party.

2.       Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondent No.1 filed a consumer complaint being complaint No.221/2009 in District Forum, Central Mumbai alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in relation to the finance agreement pertaining to car financed by the petitioner/opposite party. The petitioner in response to the notice of the compliant appeared before the District forum and resisted the complaint by filing the written statement. However, the petitioner opted to remain absent in the subsequent proceedings and ultimately the consumer complaint was decided ex-parte against the petitioner with following directions:

“2.    The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay to the complainant towards compensation of Rs.1,72,809/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Nine Only) alongwith the interest at 9% p.a. from 3.12.2009 till the date of actual realization on account of loss suffered due to attachment and sale of the vehicle.

3.       The opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of complaint.

-3-

4.       The opposite parties shall comply with the present orders within 30 days from the date of the order.

5.       The complaint against the opposite party No.4 is dismissed.”

3.   The petitioner on being served with the notice of the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent approached the State Commission in appeal. The appeal, however, was filed after the expiry of period of limitation with a delay of 126 days. Thus, alongwith the appeal an application for condonation of delay was moved, without any supporting affidavit.

4.   The State Commission on consideration of the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay was not satisfied with the explanation.  Accordingly, it dismissed the application for condonation of delay and as a consequence also dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Relevant observations of the State Commission dealing with the explanation are reproduced thus:

“Secondly, we are finding that Misc. Application filed for condonation of delay is not supported by affidavit. One affidavit has been filed mentioning that “affidavit in support of the interim application”, but nowhere it

-4-

has been mentioned in the affidavit that delay of 126 days should be condoned by allowing condonation of delay application. There is no just and sufficient cause mentioned initially in the affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay application. In fact, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant fairly conceded that there is no affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay application. Further, it is not for the office of this Commission to inform Advocate to file affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay. The office of our Commission is being manned by persons who are at the most graduates. They are not well versed in law but the Advocate who is filing the appeal must know that he/she should file affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay. What is pertinent to note is the fact that appeal filed by M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. is signed by Mr. Santosh Prakash Jawle- Area Legal Manager. He should know what should be accompanied with the delay condonation application.

It is also pertinent to note that in the District Forum appellant company remained absent and the complaint was allowed to proceed ex-parte against it and when respondent filed execution application then the company decided to approach this Commission by filing this appeal. In the circumstances, we are not at all convinced that there is just and sufficient cause for failing this so belatedly and therefore, we are not inclined to allow this condonation of delay application in the absence of affidavit filed in support thereof. Hence, we pass the following order:

O R D E R

1. Misc. Application No.138/2012 filed for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
2. Consequently, Appeal No.284/2012 does not survive for consideration.
3. The amount deposited by the applicant/appellant at the time of obtaining stay

-5-

be paid to the non-applicant/respondent after the period of revision is over, towards part satisfaction of the award.”

5.       Learned Shri Amit Singh, Advocate had contended that the State Commission has committed grave error in failing to appreciate that the affidavit filed alongwith the application for condonation of delay was defective and the Registry of the State Commission failed to point out said defect to the petitioner. Had the Registry pointed out the defect the petitioner would have filed a proper affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioner has a good case in appeal and dismissal of appeal on technical ground has caused grave injustice to the petitioner. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the objection sheet duly signed by Registrar (Legal), Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 21.3.2012. Learned counsel has also referred to Rule 9 of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. We are not convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

6.       In the instant case consumer complaint was filed in December, 2009. The petitioner after filing written statement, for the reasons best known to it, opted to absent in the proceedings and ultimately the consumer complaint

-6-

came to be decided on 15.9.2011. Even the appeal against the ex-parte order was filed after the expiry of statutory period of 30 days with a delay of 126 days for which no reasonable explanation was given as it is apparent from the affidavit filed alongwith the appeal and the application for condonation of delay. The State Commission has declined to accept the explanation for condonation of delay as affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay was not filed.

7.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the petitioner has forgotten to file supporting affidavit alongwith the application for condonation of delay, it was the obligation of the registry of the State Commission to point out the defect and they should have sought the affidavit. We find no merit in this contention for the reason that procedure regulations of the Commission are meant for smooth functioning of the Commission. The appeal before the State Commission was filed under the signatures of Manager (Legal) of the petitioner Company who is supposed to be qualified in law. Therefore, we do not find any fault in the impugned order. Otherwise also, going by the allegations in the application for condonation of delay, we find that the delay has been attributed to two reasons, namely, that shifting of office of the petitioner Company and the

-7-

bureaucratic delays in taking decision to file an appeal. That reason by itself is not sufficient to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, particularly when the petitioner opted to remain absent in the proceedings before the District Forum after filing of the written statement.

8.       Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held:

“24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under;

     “29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

       30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration  in  exercising  the  courts'  discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation /resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by

-8-

 resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.”

                   The Court further observed:

“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

-9-

29.  In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

31. In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.  

32.  In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.”

9.       The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled.  In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed:

“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

-10-

 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”.

10.     In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows:

 “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.

11.       Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed 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 foras.”

-11-

12.     In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the revision petition. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant/respondent. The cost is imposed because the petitioner taking advantage of its financial muscle has tried to delay the fruits of order of the District Forum to the respondents.