1.      This Revision Petition No.1970 of 2018 challenging the impugned order of the learned West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘State Commission’) dated 05.04.2018 wherein the First Appeal No.A/1100/2017 was dismissed being barred by limitation on the ground that the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated the reasons for delay of 251 days.

2.      The Petitioner has contended that the State Commission had erred while dismissing the Appeal on account of delay of 251 days in filing the same. This delay of 251 days was neither intentional nor malafide, rather bonafide due to the reasons as he was not received the copy of the impugned order from the District Forum and he was also not aware that under the Consumer Protection Act, Appeal needs to be filed before the higher Forum within 30 days of passing of the final order by the District Forum. The State Commission ought to have condoned the delay in filing the Appeal and the decide the same on merits.

3.      The learned Counsel for the Respondent argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission.  He has also relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 758;

(b) Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC)

(c)  Ligneswaran Etc. Vs. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227;

(d) Syndicate Bank Vs Vijay Kumar & Ors (1992) 2 SCC 330.

4.      In the Application seeking condonation of delay, the Petitioner had mentioned as follows:

“I Mr Bhaskar Ghosh (complainant) aged 42 yrs residing at Kolkata, Salt lake, since 1991, permanently in my off residence owing commercial luxary taxi, paying regular tax, having valid commercial permit, is hereby Submitting Delay Condonation Petition in Affidavit Proforma and all the pages are duly notarized.

I humbly pray to your learned and respected forum to grant my Appeal against the Judgement held at Barasat Consumer Court.dt 03/Jan/2017. Dist forum and Condone my delay to your respective forum.

I Mr Bhaskar Ghosh former credit card holder of HFDC BANK (at present my card is permanently blocked) is hereby submitting delay condonation petition to your Respected forum.

I appeared for the judgement dt: 03/01/2017, (03/Jan/2017) held at Barasat dist forum,. After the Judgement I waited patiently at the office and I did not get the copy on the same date: I were informed from the concerned staff that i need not wait in the office and I shall be contacted.

I contacted them on first week of March 2017, and went to Barasat on 16/March/2017 and collected the judgement copy by paying Rs 20 to the reception dept of Dist Consumer Disputes, Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas Barasat. (all copies encl)..

I would also like to add i am visiting Cons forum Barasat scince July 2015 and have drafted and filed all the responses and counter allegations made by the opp Party, (HDFC BANK) by furnishing all relevant docs, papers, bills but it is nowhere written or printed that i have to file the case or appeal against the judgement held at dist forum within a specified period or time nor i have received any notice or circular that I have to or it is mandatory to file the case to the State Comm within a specified period, neither i have rec. Any phone calls, mobile calls, sms alerts, any proper notice to prove that i have delayed the case.

I have not received any proper notice to my off res. Address by any reg post/courier, that i have to file the case within a specified time limit and I may demand proper enqury or justice from the opp party.

I would also like to add that i have complaint against ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INS CO (THIRD PARTY) claim going on, of Rs30000 (Rs thirty thousand) plus ints, compensation etc. (all copies of correspondence and off. Emails to ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INS CO encl) to which i were very busy and i am yet to rec the claim) to which i am not only busy but mentally demoralised, and depressed.

I received the the copy of Judgement on 16/03/2017 and have been visiting State Commission FILING DEPT, ENQ DEPT, office since April 2017 and have been and still regular in touch and enquiring the procedure of filing against the said judgement held at dist forum to STATE COMM filing dept, I am in contact regularly.

I have stated my valid reasons of in delay (may be), and I would like to add that I had not and still intentionally delayed in filing the said case to your respective forum.

I shall be immensely be very grateful if your auth. Grant me and Pardon me and Condone my delay and direct the opp. Party to Compensate me along with my Org F.D amt and interests along with litigation costs so that i receive my compensation in full and which I would like to state i am not defaulter at all.

I would also like to add i have filed, made complaints, emails, send letters all within specified time and i have not intentionally delayed any case at all.

Pls refer to my letter DELAY CONDONATION PETETION in my next doc attached with this Affidavit doc mentioning covering all the details.”

5.      On consideration of period of limitation, Hon’ble Apex Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held as follows:

“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.”

6.      The test which is to be applied while dealing with such a case is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108” has held:

"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.”

7.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578” has also observed as under:-

“while deciding the application filed, for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and that the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated appeals and revision petitions are entertained".

8.      To condone such delay in filing the RP, the Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ was explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 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”,  in as much 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 application 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.”

9.      In Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), the NCDRC held:-

“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 Aggawal 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.”

10.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lingeswaran Etc. Vs Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal(C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022 has held that:-

“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 vs. 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.”

11.    From the above orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, 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 that the applicant must satisfy that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting its case. Unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, a Court should not normally allow the application for condonation of delay under this Act.

12.    In the present case, the Petitioner admittedly filed the Appeal before the State Commission with the delay of 251 days. On perusal of the explanation rendered for the delay in filing the Appeal, I do not find any specific dates or necessary details have been mentioned as to when he came to know about the order of the District Forum.  He has mentioned only that he was received the copy of the order of the District Forum on 16.03.2017. However, he has not mentioned when he took a decision to file the appeal against the impugned order and what steps he has taken to pursue the case and what were the reasons for not filing the Appeal within time. These details were essential for consideration for condoning the delay, and were not provided. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the learned State Commission has rightly not condoned the delay.

13.    In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned Order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned State Commission. Therefore, the present Revision Petition No.1970 of 2018 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 

14.    All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.