HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24/03/2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-IV (Sealdah) (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with complaint case No. CC/58/2021.

2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellants. This office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 190 days.

3. I have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties on the application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record and the relevant documents.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties 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 after obtaining a copy of the impugned order the appellants entrusted one Mr. Pritam Chakraborty, Advocate to file the present appeal before this Commission but the said Advocate Mr. Pritam Chakraborty, did not file the same though sufficient time was given by the appellants to him. The appellants contacted several times with the said Advocate in person, however, there was no response from Mr. Pritam Chakraborty, Advocate who prevented the appellants from filing and proceeding with their appeal till August, 2023.

5. Another reason for delay is that subsequently, the appellants came to know about the execution proceeding in connection with the present complaint case being Execution Case No. EA/34/2023 and next date was fixed for the said execution case was on 26/09/2023. Seeing no response from Mr. Pritam Chakraborty, Learned Advocate and having lost patience, the appellants met with Mr. Joyjeev Medhi, Advocate and requested him to appear in the Execution Case on 26/09/2023 and Mr. Joyjeev Medhi, Advocate filed the present appeal. As such, there is delay.

6. Upon perusal of the application for condonation of delay and its written objection and other relevant documents I find that though several times were spent by the Learned Advocate Mr. Pritam Chakraborty and he did not file the same in time, in spite of that the appellants did not change the said Advocate in time for filing the appeal within the statutory period of time. It appears to me that execution case being No. EA/34/2023 was filed by the Dhr / complainant against the appellants. The appellants have filed the present appeal only to get rid from the present execution case. The plea as taken by the appellants is not convincing and believable at all and the said plea, prima facie, to have been made with the intention to mislead the Commission and to get the condonation petition allowed at the admission stage itself.

7. Under these facts and circumstances and on consideration of the application for condonation of delay and its written objection I find that the cause shown by the appellants is not sufficient, believable and acceptable.

8. 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.”

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (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.”

10. 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.

11. 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 190 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. 

16. Office to comply.