1.      These four Revision Petitions, bearing Nos. RP/2330/2023, RP/2380/2023, RP/2406/2023 and RP/2407/2023 were filed by Cross Trade Links (the “Petitioner”/“Complainant”) against ECGC Limited and Another (“Respondents”/“Opposite Parties”). These Revision Petitions challenge the orders dated 07.07.2023, 03.07.2023, 17.08.2023 and 10.08.2023 respectively in First Appeal Nos.277/2022, 274/2022, 273/2022 and 278/2022, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (the “State Commission”). The State Commission had dismissed all the Appeals as barred by limitation.  In turn, these Appeals had been filed against the Orders of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, West Delhi, New Delhi (‘District Forum’, hereafter) dated 24.11.2022 in C.C. Nos.384, 385, 383 and 382 of 2022 whereby the District Forum also dismissed the complaints being barred by limitation.

2.      Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, Revision Petition No. 2330 of 2023 is being considered as the lead case.

3.      Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties on the question of limitation in filing the Complaint filed before the District Forum and perused the material available on record.

4.      Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the Complaint before the District Forum was neither intentional nor deliberate. He asserted that Petitioner’s cause of action arose on 27.01.2022 when the final rejection of the claim was freshly reviewed by the ACGC and the Head Office (Grievance) as per Clause 4.19.2 of the Manual read with 4.20.2. Whereas, the period of limitation was counted from 05.03.2019 onwards by the learned State Commission as the 2^nd representation was rejected by the Respondents/ OPs. The Complaint was filed before the District Forum on 26.09.2022 which was within limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  It is further averred that the claim of the Petitioner was reopened after each representation and was reviewed afresh by a higher official/authority than the one who had rejected the claim under. The learned State Commission ought to have considered this fact and remanded the matter back to the District Forum for deciding the matter on merits. He, therefore, sought to allow the present Revision Petition and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Fora below.  He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Japjeet Singh Chadha Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) SCC OnLine NCDRC 150.

5.      The learned Counsel for the Respondents/OPs has argued in favour of the impugned orders passed by the Fora below.  He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

i) Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 7 SCC 768.

ii) SBI Vs BS Agricultural Industries (2009) 5 SCC 121.

iii) VN Shri Khande (Dr)Vs Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.

iv) Jansatta Sahkari Awas Samati Ltd Vs Kone Elevators India Pvt Ltd I (2016) CPJ 190 NC.

v) Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd and Anr. Vs. Satinder Pal Singh 11 (2018) CPJ 245 (NC).

vi) State of Tripura & Ors Vs Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors 1 (2014) SLT 370.

vii) Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. III (2006) CPJ 414 (NC).

viii) Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt Ltd. 1 (2019) CPJ 347 (NC).

ix) Muneesh Devi Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd (2013) 10 SCC 478.

x) HUDA Vs Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd IV (2012) CPJ 12 (NC).

xi) Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2003 (i) CPJ 31 (NC).

xii) M/s State India Express (Registered) Vs M/s Ranutrol Ltd and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

xiii) Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC).

xiv) Cicily Kallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory IV (2012) CPJ I (SC).

xv) R.B. Ramalingam Vs R.B. Bhavaneshwary 1 (2009) SLT 701.

xvi) Ram Lal Vs Rewa Coal fields Ltd AIR 1962 SC 361.

xvii) Bikram Dass Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors AIR 1977 SC 1221.

xviii) Basavraj and Anr. Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 2013 AIR SCW 6510.

xix) State of Haryana Vs Santra, Anita I (2019) CPJ 211 (NC).

XX) Eclectic Developers Pvt Vs. Smita Datta Makhija II (2019) CPJ 545 (NC).

xxi) Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd Vs. Lal Sarn Dass Sarve Hitkari School I (2019) CPJ 500 (NC).

xxii) Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksa Parishad Vs Gurmeet Kaur II (2019) CPJ 19 (NC).

xxiii) Sanjay Singh Vs Baby Chandna (NC)

xxiv) Rishi Prabhat Vs. DDA AIR 1995 DEL 9.

XXV) N. Bala Krishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy VII (1998) SLT 334.

xxvi) Kamlesh Babu & Ors Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma IV (2008) SLT 244

xxvii) Lanka Venkateswarlu (d) by LRs Vs. State of AP.

xxviii) Oriental Arora Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation II (2010) SLT 205.

xxix) Hema Hitesh Shah & Anr Vs HDFC Bank III(2022)CPJ 63 (NC).

xxx) Inder Singh Rekhi Vs DDA (1988) 2 SCC 338

xxxi) Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (2020) 14 SCC 643.

xxxii) Richard Raja Singh (Dr.) Vs. Ford Motor Co. Ltd. (2014) CPJ 509 (NC).

6.      As regards period of limitation for filing of a Complaint under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is clearly specified which is reproduced below:

“69.     (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

  (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

  Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

7.       As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal / Revision Petition/Complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed as under:

“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.”

8.      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.”

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

“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".

10.    To condone such delay in filing the Revision Petition, 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.”

11.    In Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), the NCDRC has considered the matter and 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.”

12.    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.”

13.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Civil Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018  decided on 08.04.2024 held:

“30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of  the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).”

14.    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.

15.    The Consumer Protection law inherently mandates summery procedures and it is essential for the petitioner to ensure timely filing of this Petition or explain the delay with reasonable and justifiable reasons.

16.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo-motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation suspended the period of limitation for filing proceedings before any Courts/ Tribunals or any Authority due to Covid-19 Pandemic from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Limitation would be further extended by 90 days from 01.03.2022, i.e. till 29.05.2022.  Since 29.05.2022 is Sunday, the matter filed on 30.05.2022 would be considered to have been filed within limitation.

17.    In the present case, it is evident that the Complaints were filed before the District Forum on 26.09.2022, which was after the suspended period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 30.05.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the suspended period of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

18.    As regards the delay and period of limitation, learned Counsel for the Petitioner asserted that Petitioner’s cause of action arose on 27.01.2022 when the final rejection of the claim was freshly reviewed by the ACGC and the Head Office (Grievance) as per Clause 4.19.2 of the Manual read with 4.20.2(ii). Whereas, the period of limitation was counted from 05.03.2019 onwards by the learned State Commission as the 2^nd representation was rejected by the Respondents/ OPs. The Complaint was filed before the District Forum on 26.09.2022 which was within limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The claim of the Petitioner was reopened after each representation and was reviewed afresh by a higher official/authority than the one who had rejected the claim under. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents/ OPs contended that in terms of Clause 4.19.2 of the Manual, the Petitioner was entitled to maximum of two representations to be made to Respondents/OP on rejection of its claim and therefore the claim was rejected in April, 2018 by Respondent, the Petitioner had duly exhausted its claim, one made in May, 2018 which was rejected by Respondent in August, 2018 and another representation in November, 2018 by the Petitioner was rejected by Respondent in March, 2019.  It was contended that even if the matter was referred to Head Office (Grievance) Cell for consideration by competent authority, then also the period of limitation will not be extended as the Petitioner had already exhausted his right of maximum of two representations after rejection of claim. Therefore, the representation made thereafter cannot be considered to extend the period of limitation to file Consumer Complaint.  The present Consumer Complaint, however, filed on 26.09.2022 which is beyond the stipulated 2 years.    

19.    After due examination of facts of the case and settled preposition of law in the catena of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the complaint filed before the District Commission is barred by limitation under the Act as the same expired in May, 2022 on being extended by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition. But, the Complaint was preferred on 26.09.2022. Also in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geo Miller & Co. Pvt Ltd Vs Rajasthan Vidyut Uptpadan Nigam Ltd (2020) 14 SCC 643 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that a party cannot postpone the accrual of cause of action by writing reminders or sending reminders and mere correspondence by way of writing letters/reminders subsequent to date of cause of action as it would not extend limitation. Consequently, the learned State Commission rightly did not condone the delay in filing the complaint before the District Forum.

20.    In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned Orders dated 07.07.2023, 03.07.2023, 17.08.2023 and 10.08.2023 in First Appeal Nos.277/2022, 274/2022, 273/2022 and 278/2022 respectively passed by the learned State Commission. Therefore, the present Revision Petitions No.2330, 2380, 2406 and 2407 of 2023 are Dismissed. No order as to costs. 

21.    All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.