Pinki, Member (J)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 13.07.2022, challenging the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, (South-I District), Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in C.C. No. 77/2016.
2. The application/IA-867 of 2022 dated 13.07.2022, seeking condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the appeal has been moved by appellant through counsel. This application is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Vijay Punj S/o Mr. V.N. Sharma, Assistant Manager of applicant/appellant.
3. This order will dispose off an application IA-867/2022 seeking condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal.
4. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
5. The application IA-867/2022 for condonation of delay has been moved under under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para 5 to 15 of the application read as follows:
"5. That after the pronouncement of the Impugned Order dt. 12.05.2022, no copy of the Impugned Order was received by the Appellant and the Appellant only came to know about the same through its counsel on 01.06.2022 when during checking status of the matter, counsel came to know from the Confonet website that the Impugned Order had been passed. It is noteworthy to mention here that no intimation regarding date of passing of the Impugned order was received by the Appellant either. The same was accordingly downloaded and shared with the Appellant. It is noteworthy to submit that till date no copy of the Impugned Order has been received by the Appellant from the Hon'ble District Commission.
6. That the Appellant after receiving of the Impugned Order on 01.06.2022 from its counsel, swiftly acted and sought legal opinion on the same. The copy of the impugned order was also shared with the regional department of the Appellant for further action on 02.06.2022.
7. That regional legal department of the Appellant Airline after receiving the impugned order studied the same and called for the complete records of the case from the concerned department.
8. That application for providing certified copy of the Impugned Order was filed by the counsel of the Appellant on 02.06.2022.
9. Legal Opinion was provided by the counsel for the Appellant on 06.06.2022.
10. The legal department of the Appellant thereafter forwarded the copy of the legal opinion to the concerned department for consideration and further action in the matter.
11. That certain further clarifications were sought by the Appellant from its Counsel on 06.07.2022 and again on 07.06.2022, which clarifications were responded to by counsel on 07.06.2022 and 08.06.2022 respectively.
12. That the legal department of the Appellant perused the matter and sought further clarifications from its counsel on 27.06.2022, which clarifications were provided on the same day.
13. That the Appellant after discussing the matter in house and after seeking requisite approvals, engaged counsel with instructions to prepare an Appeal. Said instructions were given by Appellant to counsel vide communication dated 28.06.2022.
14. That accordingly draft Appeal was prepared and shared with Appellant vide email dated 03.07.2022.
15. That the said draft appeal was checked by the legal department of the Appellant and approved for filing vide communication dated 04.07.2022."
7. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:-
"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 thirty 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 thirty 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 Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less]"
8. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 12.05.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 13.07.2022 i.e. after a delay of 32 days.
9. In order to condone the delay of 32 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 Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746 [LQ/SC/2013/914] . The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
"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 bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose."
10. 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."
11. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"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 [LQ/SC/2013/916] 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.
12. 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 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.
13. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 12.05.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 11.06.2022. However, the reason stated for the delay is that appellant came to know about of the impugned order through its counsel during checking of status of the matter. Copy of the impugned order was received by the applicant/appellant on 01.06.2022 and then copy of the impugned order was sent to legal department for further action. On 02.06.2022, counsel for the appellant had applied for certified copy and legal opinion was also provided by him on 06.06.2022. Then on various dates 07.06.2022, 08.06.2022, 27.06.2022 & 28.06.2022, clarifications were sought between the counsel for the appellant and legal department. After all process, appeal was drafted on 03.07.2022 and finally approved on 04.07.2022 for filing of the same by the legal department. Therefore, the delay of 32 days has occurred in filing the present appeal.
14. From the perusal of record, it is to be noticed that the impugned order was passed on 12.05.2022 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order, the true certified copy of impugned order is annexed from page no. 34 to 38 of the appeal filed wherein the dispatch no. is 798-799 dated 19.05.2022. It means that copy of the impugned order was dispatched on 19.05.2022. Even if the limitation is counted from 19.05.2022 i.e. date of dispatch, there is 25 days delay in filing the present appeal and appeal filed on 13.07.2022 is beyond the period of limitation.
15. However, no cogent reasons have been mentioned only general reasons have been averred. In order to condone the delay, the appellant has to satisfy the Commission for delay of each day. However, the appellant has failed to show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. The applicant has abused the process of law and filed this appeal after immense delay without any reasonable ground. There is no corresponding document on record to substantiate the reason for delay as averred in the application.
16. As per the averments made in the application as well as the record, we are of the considered view that sufficient reason has not been explained for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and there is delay of 32 days in filing the appeal.
17. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicant/appellant/opposite party has failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, the application/IA-867 of 2022 filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted. Hence dismissed.
18. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
19. File be consigned to record room.
