HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, ‘the Act’) by the appellant, Milestone Trusteeship Services Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 11/10/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-II, (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/63/2019.

2. Along with the appeal an 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 626 days.

3. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant at length and in full and carefully perused the application for condonation of delay.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and on perusal of the record it appears to me that in the application the reasons given for the delay in filing of the appeal are that due to wrong advice of the Learned Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, the appellant filed the review application against the impugned order and the said review application was dismissed on 16/05/2023.

5. Another reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that against the dismissal of the review application the appeal was preferred before this Commission and the said appeal was dismissed on 01/07/2024 by this Commission.

6. Another reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that time consumed in prosecuting the Review Application and the erstwhile appeal before this Commission for the defect of jurisdiction should be excluded from computing the period of limitation from preferring the appeal against the impugned order dated 11/10/2022.

7. On careful perusal of the application for condonation of delay and the record it appears to me that the appeal against the review application was dismissed on 01/07/2024.

8. It also appears to me that the present appeal has been filed on 18/07/2024. Record goes to show that the appellant has not explained the cause of delay for the period from 01/07/2024 to 28/07/2024. There was deliberate negligence and latches on the part of the appellant in preferring the instant appeal. The grounds on which the condonation of delay has been sought are not correct and genuine. Therefore, it may clearly be concluded that the appellant has not explained the cause of delay in filing of the appeal for the period from 01/07/2024 to 28/07/2024. So, the cause shown by the appellant is not sufficient, believable and acceptable.

9. 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.”

10. 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.”

11. 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.

12. 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.”

13. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has relied on the decisions reported in 1987 SCC OnLine Bom 32 : (1987) 2 Bom CR 153, an unreported judgment in connection with Revision Petition No. 1562 of 2011, (1988) 2 Supreme Court Cases 142, (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107, an unreported judgment in connection with CO 1563 of 2018 with CO 1564 of 2018 with CO 1565 of 2018 & 2019(3) Mh.L.J.] Page 121. However, reliance on these judgments in the adjudication of the application for condonation of delay, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.

14. In view of the above decisions and under this facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 626 days. The present appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

15. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.

16. The appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.

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