HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.06.2015 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat ( in short, ‘the District Forum’) in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/658/2014.
- Along with the appeal the application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellants.
- We have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants on the application for condonation of delay and carefully perused the record.
- Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that one of the appellant sustained head injury, and, as such, he was admitted in SSKM Hospital for a long time where he was partially paralysed and lost his memory. He has further submitted that in the Execution Case filed by the respondent, the appellants / opposite parties wanted to give the respondent / complainant the shop room in question but no negotiation took place. As such, the compromise is under process. He has further submitted that this appeal has been filed to waive the cost of Rs.1,000/- per day to the SCWF as was imposed by the Learned District Forum. So, the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellants should be allowed and the appeal should be admitted.
- 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 2855 days. It also appears to us that the judgment of this case was passed on 24.06.2015 and the present appeal has been filed on 18.05.2023.
- Now, we shall have to consider as to whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed.
- To adjudicate this issue we deem it appropriate to refer section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which runs as follows :-
“15. Appeal. – Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty 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 thirty 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 Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount of twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less:”
- 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 30 days from the date of order. On perusal of the record produced before us it is clear that the impugned order was passed on 24.06.2015 and the present appeal was filed on 18.05.2023 i.e. after a delay of 2855 days. The office has also submitted a report before this Commission that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 2855 days.
- In order to condone the delay of the said 2855 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”.
- 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.”
- Reverting to the materials available before us para Nos. 2 & 3 of the application for condonation of delay is the explanation given by the appellants for the delay caused in filing the appeal. To explain the said delay the appellants have stated that one of the appellants / opposite parties sustained head injury and was admitted in SSKM Hospital for a long time. As such, one of the appellants was paralysed and lost his memory. They have further stated in the delay application that the respondent / complainant filed the Execution proceeding and the appellants / opposite parties wanted to give the shop room in question to the respondent and complainant and negotiation to that effect is going on. But on careful consideration of the submission and the said petition filed by the appellants it appears to us that the appellants / opposite parties have not filed any paper in support of their claim that all the appellants sustained head injury and they were admitted in SSKM Hospital for treatment. The appellants / opposite parties have not filed any document to prove that negotiation between the parties was going on to solve the matter in dispute. Therefore, we may conclude that the appellants / opposite parties have failed to prove that they were admitted in the SSKM Hospital as they suffered head injury on their person. The submission as made by the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants is, therefore, not believable. We think that such plea has been taken by the appellants in order to get rid of the complaint case and to get the condonation of the delay though they had full knowledge about this case. The plea taken by the appellants/ opposite parties is not convincing and believable at all and the said plea, prima facie, appeared to have been made with the intention to mislead this Commission to get the condonation petition allowed at the admission stage itself.
- In the result, the submission of the appellants that the appellants / opposite parties suffered head injury and they were admitted in the SSKM Hospital for a long time and one of the appellants was paralysed and lost his memory is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Commission.
- In view of the above, we find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 2855 days. The appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.
- The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.
- Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation.
- The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
