Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/224/2024

M/S INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINAY KUMAR ATTAR - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP JASUJA

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	224 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	18.06.2024
Date of Decision	:	30.07.2024

1. M/s Indira Gandhi Institute of Aeronautics, SCO 491-492, 2^nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 160022 through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s Indira Gandhi Institute of Aeronautics, A1/175, 4^th Floor, Main Najafgarh Road, Near Janakpuri, West Metro Station, Opposite Metro Pillar No.612, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 through its Managing Director. 

 ……Appellants/opposite parties

V e r s u s

Vinay Kumar Attar son of Sh. Ajay Kumar Attar, aged about 31 years r/o House No.1011, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 ….Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                            

Present:-              Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the applicants/appellants.

                            

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   In this appeal, the appellants (opposite parties) have assailed the order dated  04.10.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.869 of 2022 filed by the complainant (respondent no.1) was partly allowed against them, as under:-

“…..In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the aforesaid amount of ₹1,70,625/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this consumer complaint i.e. 12.10.2022, till the date of payment.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.….”

2.           Before the District Commission it was the case of the complainant-Vinay Kumar Attar that in the month of July 2022, he approached  opposite party no.1 for coaching of Commercial Pilot Licence (in short the coaching course). It was informed to the complainant by  opposite party no.1 that he was required to get admission for one year course.  On the assurance given by  opposite party no.1, the complainant agreed and paid entire course fee of Rs.1,90,000/- to the opposite parties through NEFT on 7.7.2022, (Annexure C-3). The said coaching course was to be started on 6.7.2022, but, on 11.7.2022  the opposite parties  sent a message that the teacher is not coming and the complainant should come to attend his classes from 12.7.2022. The complainant attended the classes w.e.f. 12.7.2022 to 10.8.2022, but, faced certain problems during the said period, as the teachers were not found expert in the field.  Accordingly, the complainant requested the opposite parties that he wanted to discontinue the course regarding which he had sent a message (Annexure C-5) to Vineet on 10.8.2022 and also wrote letter dated 26.8.2022 (Annexure C-6).  When nothing happened, the complainant served legal notice (Annexure C-8) upon the OPs in the matter but to no avail. Hence, consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3.           Notice of the consumer complaint was served upon the opposite parties, who appeared through counsel and sought time for filing reply and evidence. However, on the adjourned date, neither anybody appeared on behalf of opposite parties before the District Commission nor reply and evidence were filed, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.3.2023.
4.           The complainant led evidence in support of his case, before the District Commission.
5.           The District Commission after hearing the counsel for the complainant and on going through the material available on record partly allowed the consumer complaint, as stated above.
6.           Hence this appeal.
7.           Alongwith this appeal, the appellant has also filed application for condonation of delay of 251 days in filing the same.
8.           The record of the District Commission was requisitioned and received by this Commission.
9.           I have heard the counsel for the appellants and have gone through the material available on the entire record, very carefully.
10.           First coming to the application for condonation of delay, it may be stated here that Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short CPA 2019) provides as under:-

“………..41. 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:

•  

 

11.           The term sufficient cause has the same meaning as provided under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Before deciding this case, it is significant to mention here that this Commission has to keep in mind the broad principles laid down in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, viz. ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour, and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty.
12.           In para no.2 and 3 of the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated by the applicants/appellants as under:-

 

“…..2. That the appellants were proceeded against ex-parte and ex-parte impugned order dated 04.10.2023 was passed against the appellants. It was only when the complainant/respondent 19.10.2023 left the impugned order in the office of appellant No. 1, the appellants came to know about the passing of impugned order. There after the appellants made enquiry from his counsel and then appellants on the bonafide legal advice filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings by way of online filing. However, the registry of this Hon'ble Commission objected to the said application being not maintainable and as such, the said application was not pursued.

 

3. That the appellants then approached this Hon'ble Commission by way of filing a Revision petition No. 3 of 2024 challenging the order dated 04.10.2024. However, said revision petition was also later on withdrawn on 10.05.2024 by the appellants in order to challenge the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-1, Chandigarh by way of appeal. Now the present appeal is being filed after collecting all the necessary documents, engaging a new counsel and arranging for the 50% of the awarded amount the present appeal is being filed. However a delay of 251 days has occurred due to reasons mentioned above which is unintentional, bonafide and not deliberate.…..”

 

13.           The grounds taken  by the appellants in the application for delay in filing this appeal is that they came to know about the order impugned, when on 19.10.2023, the respondent/complainant left the impugned order in the office of appellant No. 1; and that thereafter, they had approached this Hon'ble Commission by way of filing Revision petition No.3 of 2024 challenging the order dated 04.10.2023 and the said revision petition was also later on withdrawn on 10.05.2024 by the appellants in order to challenge the order dated 04.10.2023 by way of filing appeal. I have considered the plea taken by the appellants but am of the view that the same is of no use for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 
14.           Perusal of record of the District Commission reveals that the applicants had put in appearance before the District Commission, through their Counsel namely Sh.Mohit Malik, Advocate  on 06.01.2023, yet, thereafter, instead of filing written reply and evidence, they disappeared, as a result  whereof, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.03.2023. Even thereafter also, no steps were taken by the appellants to get the exparte order set aside within the limitation period and now when the order impugned has been passed against them, they have filed the appeal and that too with a huge delay of 251 days.
15.           As far as filing of revision petition before this Commission is concerned, it may be stated here that mere filing of the said revision petition and thereafter withdrawing the same on 10.05.2024, will not give any immunity to the appellants, from filing this appeal after a huge delay of 251 days.  Besides this, it has not been explained by the applicants, as to why they failed to file the written version within the prescribed period of 45 days, before the District Commission.
16.           In view of the facts narrated above, I am of the view that that there is no sufficient explanation on behalf of the applicants regarding filing the appeal after such a huge delay of 251 days. The applicants have been unable to make out a convincing case of having sufficient cause to justify the delay of  251 days in filing the appeal.
17.           In “Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746”; the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed inter alia –

“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 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. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”

 

18.           The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.  37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the Hon’ble National Commission and refused to condone the delay of even 13 days. 
19.           Similarly in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.
20.           In “Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC), the Hon’ble National  Commission had observed as follows –

“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 Vs. 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.”

 

21.           In, “Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C ) Nos. 2054- 2055 of 2022, decided on 25.02.2022”, similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed inter alia –

 

“5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once  it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application  for condonation of delay, thereafter,  the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to  condone the delay would be  giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is  guilty of delay and laches.  At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane V. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to  be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable  grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice  but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.”

 

22.           The Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Prem Prakash Goel vs. Green Carriers and Contractors (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. as reported in II (2014) CPJ 22 (NC) held that that the fragile explanation for the condonation of delay does not ring the bell. Day to day explanation not having been furnished the delay cannot be condoned.
23.           In Central Bank of India vs. Ayodha Prasad Awasthi , I (2015) CPJ 712 (NC) also, the Hon'ble National Commission held that specific periods have been prescribed for filing of appeal and revision petitions under the law to ensure that fruits of awards or decree are not unduly delayed to successful litigants. Cogent explanation is to be given in support of each request for condonation of delay. Petitioner failed to explain the delay satisfactorily so as to constitute sufficient cause. Delay was not condoned.
24.           As stated above, in the present case also, the applicants have failed to give any sufficient cause to condone the huge delay of  251 days in filing the appeal and as such, this Commission finds no justification to condone the said delay. The application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal thus stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
25.           Under these circumstances, if I still proceed further on merits of this case, it would be nothing but commission of an illegality on the part of this Commission, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002, decided 20 March, 2009,    wherein it was held once the case is barred by time and yet, the consumer Commission decides it on merit, it would be committing an illegality and, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
26.           Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
27.           All pending applications stand disposed of, accordingly.
28.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
29.           The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this appeal, be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

30.07.2024

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Rg