HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 02/08/2019 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit III, Alipore, West Bengal in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/509/2018.  Along with the appeal the application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant.

2. We have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant at length and in full on the application for condonation of delay. Also carefully perused the record.

3. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has prayed to condone the delay in filing the instant appeal beyond the period of limitation for the ends of justice.

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

“Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an 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 deposited 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. “

5. On perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it appears to us that the appeal against the order should be preferred within a period of 45 days from the date of order. It appears to us that the impugned order was passed on 02.08.2019 and the present appeal was filed on 31.03.2023 i.e. after a delay of about 1290 days. The office has also submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 1290 days.

6. In order to condone the delay of 1290 days, the appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in connection with  the case reported in AIR 214 SC 746 (Baswaraj and Ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer). In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that :-

“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”.

7. 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.”

8. 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 parties 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 unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished. The Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.

9. Reverting to the material available before us, para nos. 12 & 13 of the application for condonation of delay is the explanation given by the appellant for the delay caused in filing this appeal. It is clear that the impugned order was passed on 02.08.2019 and the appeal was supposed to be filed by 17.09.2019 i.e. within 45 days from the date of the impugned order. The appellant filed the present appeal on 31.03.2023 which is after the delay of 1290 days.

10. Therefore, the appellant shall have to explain the delay for the period from 17.09.2019 to 31.03.2023.

11. The appellant has taken plea that the appellant was totally bedridden due to serious ailment to communicate with the Advocate to have proper advice. The appellant was totally dependent upon the Advocate and was totally ignorant about the procedure of the Consumer Court. There was no intentional latches on the part of the applicant. The appellant has also taken another plea that the appellant is a senior citizen and undergoing treatment for medical complications namely C2–C6 Ossified Posterior Longitudinal Ligament since 2014 and has undergone surgery in the Christian Medical College, Vellore and had since been bedridden and is still undergoing treatment. As such, the appellant was unable to file the appeal in time.

12. On perusal of the record it appears to us that the appellant has not denied on oath that he has not received the notice in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/509/2018 and E.A. No. 190/2019. Rather the appellant has clearly and categorically stated in the application for condonation of delay that the notice of Consumer Case No. CC/509/2018 and Execution Case No. EA/190/2019 was duly served at S.P. No. 153 at premises No. 23/A Sahapur Road, Sahapur Colony, P.S. New Alipore, Kolkata – 700 053.

13. Learned Lawyer appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was a senior citizen and undergoing treatment for a medical complication, as such, he has failed to file the appeal in time. We find that the said submission of the appellant is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Court. So, the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay is without any merit.

14. In view of the above we find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of 1290 days. The present appeal is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

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

16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation.