1.      The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5.2.2016 of the State Commission in appeal No.455 of 2014. 

2.      The present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 133 days and, therefore, an application for condonation of delay being IA No.10641 of 2016 has been filed alongwith the revision petition.

3.      Arguments of the parties on this application have been heard. 

-2-

IA No.10641 of 2016 (condonation of delay)

1.      It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that delay had occurred due to the fact that the petitioner, being a company, had its regional and district offices at different places and its legal department is situated at its registered office at Akola.  It is submitted that the impugned order was passed at Aurangabad and the copy after it being received at Aurangabad regional office was forwarded to Jalgaon regional office and then to Head-Office.  The matter was evaluated by the concerned officers and the opinion was sought by the legal department.  The proposal was put forth with the management for the purpose of filing the revision petition.  The concerned personnel was transferred from the regional office and it being a peak season for the seeds, it further led to delay in approaching the counsel for filing the revision.  Briefing to the counsel at New Delhi was thereafter done and the copies of the relevant documents were supplied to him which took further time.  Since the pleadings and the documents were in Marathi Language, its translation to English also took further time.  It is submitted that all these factors collectively caused the delay in presenting the revision petition.  It is prayed that the delay be condoned.

-3-

2.      The complainant/respondent No.1 who is present in person has strongly opposed the said application and submitted that no reasonable grounds for condonation of delay has been shown by the petitioner company and the application be dismissed and the revision petition be also dismissed.

3.      I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the parties and perused the file.  It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right.  Reasonable grounds are required to be shown for condoning the delay in filing the petition by the applicant.  This Commission, no doubt is vested with the discretion to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds but then it has to be within the four corners of law and has to be exercised by the Commission in appropriate cases and such delays should not be set aside merely on the ground that denial would cause inconvenience to a particular party.  The party is required to show the existence of sufficient cause for such delay.  These sufficient causes should be of such nature which prevented it from filing the revision petition/appeal within the period of limitation.  The parties are also required to show it had been acting diligently and remained active and the delay had occurred for the reasons

-4-

beyond its control.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the courts can exercise its discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown.  The Apex Court has held as under:

  “12. 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.”

4.       It is also settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained.  The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24” as under:

"5. 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.”

5.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further cautioned this Commission and directed it to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while dealing with application for condonation of delay.  In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“5.       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."

6.      It is, therefore, a settled proposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained by showing sufficient reasons and grounds.  In the present case, the only reason seeking condonation of delay is that the delay had occurred due to administrative reasons.  The explanation given does not inspire any confidence and is not sufficient.  Such delays could have been avoided had the officials of the petitioner acted with due diligence and sincerely and mindful of the period of limitation.  It seems that the officials of the petitioner had acted with their own pace in a lethargic and un-mindful manner.  In the case of Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. –vs- Union of India (UOI) AIR2019 SC 505, Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held as under :

 15….. “Administrative difficulties would not be a valid reason to condone a delay above and beyond the statutory prescribed period Under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.”

-6-

7.      I find no ground to condone the delay.  The application is hereby dismissed. 

8.      Consequent there upon, the present revision petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation.

9.      It is submitted by the complainant/respondent that the petitioner had deposited the decretal amount with the District Forum pursuant to the directions of this Commission. The same may be ordered to be released to him.  Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions says that petitioner has no objection if the deposited amount be released to the complainant.  In view of these submissions, the District Forum is directed to release the decretal amount in favour of the complainant/respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order or on the application of the complainant.  Complainant is also free to file execution application in case any balance amount. 

With these directions, the revision petition stands dismissed.