HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly at Chinsurah ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/73/2019.

2. Along with the appeal the application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant. The office has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 416 days.

3. I have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant including the application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record.

4. In the application the reason given for the delay in filing the appeal is that the certified copy was obtained by the Learned Advocate on 01.03.2023 but he had misplaced the same and he could not recover such copy. He could only recover such copy only on 06.05.2023 and thereafter the tadvirkar of the appellant could not contact his present Learned Advocate for filing the instant appeal. The appellant has further stated that the Learned Advocate had applied for the entire order sheet of consumer case No. CC/73/2019 passed by the Learned District Commission but unfortunately, the said record could not be traced by the record department of the Learned District Commission below and the said record was traced on 21.09.2023 and the appellant applied for certified copy and received the same on 10.02.2023.

5. The only cause shown for the delay is that the certified copy of the impugned order was misplaced by the Learned Advocate and he recovered such copy only on 06.05.2023 and the appellant did not get the certified copy of the order as the record could not be traced by the record department of the Learned District Commission below. No supporting averments to establish such plea are filed by the appellant to substantiate the case of the appellant. So, the cause shown is, therefore, insufficient and not believable. The plea taken by the appellant is, therefore, not convincing and believable and the said plea, prima facie, appears to have been made with the intention to mislead the Commission to get the condonation petition allowed at the admission stage itself. 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.”

6. In another case reported in 1 (2009) CLT 188 (SC) (R B Ramlingam Vs. R B Bhavaneshwari, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held 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.

7. The Hon’ble Court has further observed that :-

“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.”

8. In another case reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578 (Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein.

9. 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.”

10. In view of the above, I find no sufficient ground to condone the delay of about 416 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law. The application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, dismissed.

11. The appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.

12. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.