HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 06/07/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/36/2021.

2. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the appellants.

3. We have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants on the application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment was passed on 06.07.2022 in absence of the appellants and no copy of the judgment was served upon the appellants till date. He has further submitted that upon receiving notice of execution case being execution application No. 74/2022 the appellants came to know about the impugned judgment at first. He has further submitted that on obtaining certified copy of judgment the appellants have filed the instant appeal on 20.03.2023. He has further submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal as the information of the impugned judgment came to the knowledge of the appellants for the first time on 16.03.2023 though the judgment was passed on 06.07.2022.  He has further submitted that there was no latches on the part of the appellants to file the appeal in time. It was beyond the knowledge of the appellants about the impugned judgment. So, the application for condonation of delay should be allowed.

5. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and on perusal of the record it appears to us that the office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 212 days. It also appears to us that the judgment of this case was passed on 06.07.2022 and the present appeal has been filed on 20.03.2023.

6. Now, we shall have to consider as to whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed.

7. To adjudicate this issue we deem it appropriate to refer section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which runs as follows :-

“41. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer and appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposite fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:

Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80.”

8. On perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision it is clear to us that the appeal against the order should be preferred within a period of 45 days from the date of order. On perusal of the record produced before us it is clear that the impugned order was passed on 06/07/2022 and the present appeal was filed on 20/03/2023 i.e. after a delay of 212 days.  The office has also submitted before this Commission that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 212 days.

9. In order to condone the delay of the said 212 days, the appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the statutory period. The term “sufficient cause” has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under :-

“9.Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The appellant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose”.

10. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under :-

“12. ………….. we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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 the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained.

From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble National Commission, it is clear that ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any ‘sufficient cause’ from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.”

11. Moreover, it appears to us that the complainant has failed to explain day to day delay in filing the appeal.

12. Reverting to the materials available before us, paras No. 7 & 8 of the application for condonation of delay are the explanation given by the appellants for the delay caused in filing the appeal. It is clear that the impugned order was passed on 06.07.2022 and the appeal was supposed to be filed on 21.08.2022 i.e. within 45 days from the date of the impugned order. The appellant filed the present appeal on 20.03.2023 which is after a delay of more than 212 days. To explain the said delay, the appellant has stated in the petition that the information of the impugned judgment came to the knowledge of the appellants for the first time on 16.02.2023. There was no latches on the part of the appellants to file the present appeal in time. But from the record it appears to us that after filing of the complaint case before the Learned District Commission notices upon the appellants were duly served upon the appellants and the appellants on receiving the notices appeared before the Learned District Commission and filed written version to contest the case. Therefore, it may be concluded that the appellants had full knowledge about this case and about the judgment delivered by the Learned District Commission.

13. It also appears to us that the respondents / complainants filed execution case and notice of execution case was duly served upon the appellants. When the execution case was filed, the appellants came and filed the present appeal before this Commission.

14. Moreover, it appears to us that the appellants have failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal day to day. Under these facts and circumstances we may conclude that the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause and justify the delay in filing the present appeal.

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a case reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 430 – ( State of UP Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare ) that once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the appellant.

16. In another case reported in II (2014) CPJ 570 (NC) – (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. S. Shiva Shankar Rao) the Hon’ble National Commission held that in this case day to day delay was not explained, the cases are barred by limitation.

17. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the condonation of delay would depend on the background of each and every case; and routine explanation would not enough. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in University of Delhi Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 94889489 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 55815582 of 2019 decided on 17/12/2019 has held as under :-

“The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation Page 24 of 34 would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation

....................

That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal”.

18. It also appears to us that the judgment of this case was passed on 06.07.2022 and the appellants were silent till the execution case is filed by the respondents / complainants. In the result, the submission of the appellants that they got the knowledge of the impugned order on receiving notice of execution case is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Commission.

19. In view of the above, we find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of 212 days. The present appeal is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

20. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed being barred by limitation.

21. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed without being admitted.