RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No.1654 of 2012
Ram Swaroop aged about 65 years,
S/o Sri Ram Prasad, R/o Gram Bonamau,
Post, Thana & District: Unnao. ….Appellant.
Versus
Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Bethar Branch, Unnao. …Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.
Sri Vikas Agarwal for the respondent.
Date 21.5.2015
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2.2.2012, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Unnao in complaint case No.147 of 2011, the appellant Sri Ram Swaroop has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law as the same was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice and he be awarded the amount prayed by him in the complaint case, otherwise he will suffer irreparable financial loss.
None appeared on behalf of the appellant when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 26.2.2015. Since the appeal was pending for more than 3 years for disposal,
(2)
therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act 68 of 1986, we preferred to decide the appeal on the basis of evidence available on record.
We have given due consideration on all facts and circumstances available on record. Due consideration has also been given on all circumstances narrated in the application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, the impugned judgment was delivered by the Ld. DCDRF, Unnao on 2.2.2012 and certified copy of the same was provided to the appellant on the same date and, therefore, he was required to file the appeal by 3.3.2012 but the appeal was filed on 26.7.2012. Thus, there is a delay of about 142 days over and above the period of limitation in filing the appeal Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that 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 30 days from the date of the order; and the State Commission may entertain an appeal after expiry of the said period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appear within the statutory period of 30 days. In the instant matter, the judgment was passed in complaint case on 2.2.2012 and, therefore, the appellant was required to file the appeal by 3.3.2012 whereas, the instant appeal was filed on 26.7.2012. Thus, there is a delay of about 142 days in filing the appeal and, therefore, we are required to see whether there exists
(3)
"sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal within the statutory period of 30 days or not. In Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Naresh Singh, I(2013) CPJ 407 (NC), where the delay was of 71 days only, it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that:
"condonation cannot be a matter to routine and the petitioner is required to explain delay for each and every date after expiry of the period of limitation".
Similarly, in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Brij Kishore Pandy, IV (2009) CPJ 217 (NC), the delay of 111 days was not condoned as day-to-day delay was not
explained. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. V.P. Narayanan, IV (2011) CPJ 155 (NC), where the delay was of only 84 days, it was held that:
"this is enough to demonstrate that there was no reason for this delay, much less a sufficient cause to warrant its condonation."
In Anshul Agarwal Vs. NOIDA, IV(2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 7 that:
"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 petition filed against the orders of the Consumer Fora."
(4)
It may be observed here that even after a party cites sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, it cannot claim condonation as a matter of right. The proof of sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction, vested in the Fora under Section 15 of the Act. If "sufficient cause" is not shown then nothing further is required to be done; and the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If, however, sufficient cause is shown, then the Forum has to enquire whether, in its discretion, it should condone the delay or not? This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts, circumstances and evidence on record; and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona-fide also fall for due consideration but the scope of enquiry, while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown, would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Forum may record as relevant.
In Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746, the Hon'ble Apex Court was please to hold that:
"Condonation of delay without considering the most relevant factor i.e. "sufficient cause" only on the condition that applicant would be deprived of interest for the delay period is most in appropriate. Where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. No Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by
(5)
imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the Court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
In view of the above discussions and the rulings laid down by the Hon'ble Appellate Courts, we are of the considered view that the appellant has miserably failed to establish sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period of 30 days. It also failed to give day-to-day explanation of the delay of about 142 days. Thus, it will not be appropriate for us to condone the same. The law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights and later on, claim condonation on one ground or the other. The object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will certainly get frustrated if such highly belated appeals are entertained. No irreparable loss will be caused to the appellant nor will there be any failure of justice if the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage as barred by limitation.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant/complainant had a bank account bearing no.11775048202 in the State Bank of India, Branch Bethar, Unnao. He had taken a loan for agricultural purposes from the Bank (the amount has not be disclosed) on 12.12.2000. He had also taken a sum of Rs.50,000.00
(6)
as loan from the aforesaid Bank for purchasing agricultural equipments (again the date of taking the loan has not been disclosed). It has been alleged that due to bad weather and other reasons, he failed to produce any crop and consequently was unable to repay the loan taken by him from the Bank. It has been alleged that the Bank issued a recovery certificate for Rs.3,42,215.00 on 25.6.2011 and forcefully repossessed his tractor bearing no.UP 35 H 940. He was not given any benefit of agricultural debt waiver under the Debt Relief Scheme launched by the Govt. of India. Consequently, he filed a writ petition bearing no. WP 3985 (M/B) of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court in which, as submitted by the appellant, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Bank to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month. The appellant has not filed copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court nor has quoted the same in the memo of appeal and, therefore, we are unable to ascertain anything about the directions given by the Bank. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the Bank denied the averments in its WS and stated that the complaint was filed with an ulterior motive to escape from the liability to repay the Bank loan. In para 16 of the WS, the Bank admitted that a Writ Petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court. It complied with the directions and accordingly had given the respondent/ complainant the benefit of the Government Scheme for the period 30.6.2008 to 19.7.2008 amounting to Rs.1,02,860.37. After considering all facts, circumstances
(7)
and evidence on record, the Forum below observed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/Bank. The appellant had failed to repay the loan and consequently, Recovery Certificate was issued and as a follow up action, it had repossessed the tractor which was hypothecated to the Bank. The complaint was dismissed and a cost of Rs.4,000.00 was awarded to the Bank towards cost of litigation. There is not irregularity and illegality in the order. The judgment is based on facts, circumstances and evidence on record and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on merit as well.
ORDER
The appeal, being meritless and barred by limitation, is dismissed with costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Sanjai Kumar)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA II
Court No.4
