HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revisional application has been filed against the order      No. 13 dated 19/01/2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (In short, ‘District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/304/2019.

2. Along with revision application, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the revisionist seeking the following reliefs :-

“.... that your Honour may graciously be pleased to allow this instant application for condonation of delay and condone the delay of 275 days for the ends of justice. And / or pass such other order / orders as your Honour may deem fit and proper.“

3. We have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist on the application for the condonation of delay. Also carefully perused the record.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order was passed on 19.01.2022. The revision ought to have been filed within 19.04.2022. However, the same has been filed on 19.01.2023. So, there is a delay of 275 days beyond the period of 90 days from the date of the order as the petitioner does not have any knowledge regarding the case under revision. He has further submitted that the Learned Commission below has committed wrong in passing the impugned order as no summon was ever served upon the revisionist. The revisionist being married has been living since at her matrimonial house situated at a complete different jurisdiction. The same also transpires from the postal track consignment report that the article has been returned due to addressee left without instruction. From another postal report it is learned due to insufficient address the article could not be delivered. He has further submitted that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 275 days. The application for condonation of delay should be allowed, otherwise, the revisionist will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

5. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on perusal of the record it appears to us that the office has submitted a report that this revisional application has been filed with a delay of 275 days.

6. It also appears to us that the order of this case was passed on 19.01.2022 and the revision application has been filed on 19.01.2023. Now, we shall have to consider as to whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed. We have already decided in our foregoing paras that the impugned order was passed on 19.01.2022 and the present revisional application has been filed on 19.01.2023. Therefore, it appears to us that the revisionist has filed this application after 275 days beyond the period of 90 days from the date of order. In order to condone the delay of 275 days, the revisionist has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the revision after the statutory period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. 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 appellant 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”.

7. 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.”

8. 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 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.”

9. The Hon’ble National Commission in a case being No. / revision petition No. 438 of 2021 (HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goyal) has pronounced that :-

“Be that as it may, ordinarily we tend to adopt a liberal approach on the aspect of considering the point of condonation of delay and lean to take an indulgent view towards the side who seeks such condonation. It is for the reason that we prefer that a matter be decided on merits rather than closed at the threshold stage i.e. on the ground of delay but that does not imply that we may ever ride roughshod over the statutory requirement regarding the law of limitation wherever it has been provided by the legislature in its wisdom. It does not need much elaboration to state that when the period of limitation expires it simultaneously gives rise to a right which accrues to the other side and the other side cannot be divested of its accrued right for no adequate reason, that is why, whenever there is a delay, and whenever condonation on that aspect is sought, by either side, it has to discharge the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds relying upon which such delay may be condoned. It goes without saying that such explanation has to be genuine and not an explanation just for the sake of explanation. Anything and everything said to bridge up a yawning gap of delay is not to be termed as legitimate explanation, which has to be sincere, honest and persuasively adequate and worthy of credence.”

10. Reverting to the materials available before us para 17 of the application for condonation of delay is the explanation given by the revisionist for the delay caused in filing the revision. To explain the said delay, the revisionist has stated in the said petition that no notice was served upon the revisionist. As such the revisionist has failed to contest the case and has failed to file written version.

11. Further case of the revisionist is that the revisionist came to know about the impugned order in the month of September, 2022 from her paternal uncle and instantly she appeared before the Learned Commission  below and filed an application for vacating the ex parte order which was rejected by the Commission vide order dated 22.09.2022. As such, there is a delay in filing the appeal which should be condoned.

12. The Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist has drawn our attention of this Commission to the track consignment report where the postal authority made an endorsement with remarks “addressee left without instruction” and from another report “insufficient address”.

13. We fail to accept the case of the revisionist. On careful perusal of the order passed by the Learned Commission below dated 23.12.2019, 08.06.2020, 23.11.2020, 22.12.2020, 15.02.2021, 25.03.2021, 19.04.2022, 25.08.2021, 27.10.2021 and the impugned order dated 19.01.2022 it appears to us that the father of the revisionist Badal Chakraborty, Opposite Party No. 4 entered appearance in this case and was contesting the case by filing written version. It also appears to us that during proceeding, the Opposite Party No. 4 i.e. the predecessor of the revisionist died and the revisionist was substituted in place of respondent / Opposite Party No. 4 Sri Badal Chakraborty, predecessor in interest of the revisionist. After substitution, notice was duly issued upon the revisionist and as per the track consignment report item delivery was confirmed. Moreover, it appears to us that the uncle of the revisionist i.e. Opposite Party No. 3 Arabinda Chakraborty was the Opposite Party No. 3 in this case and the Opposite Party No. 3 and father of the respondent filed joint written version before the Commission below. We think that the revisionist has taken the plea that she has not received notice only to condone the delay though she had full knowledge about this case. So, the plea as taken by the revisionist is not convincing and believable at all and the said plea prima facie to have been made with the intention to mislead the Commission and to get the condonation petition allowed at the admission stage itself.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a case reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 430 – ( State of UP Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare ) that once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the appellant.

15. In another case reported in II (2014) CPJ 570 (NC) – (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. S. Shiva Shankar Rao) the Hon’ble National Commission held that in this case day to day delay was not explained, the cases are barred by limitation.

16. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the condonation of delay would depend on the background of each and every case; and routine explanation would not enough. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in University of Delhi Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 94889489 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 55815582 of 2019 decided on 17/12/2019 has held as under :-

“The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation Page 24 of 34 would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation

....................

That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal”.

17. Under these facts and circumstances and on careful perusal of the materials on record it appears to us that the revisionist has failed to explain day to day delay in filing the instant revision.

18. Accordingly, we may conclude that the revisionist has failed to prove sufficient cause or justify the delay in filing the present revision.

19. Under these facts and circumstances we find that the submission of the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist that the revisionist got the knowledge of the impugned order in the month of September, 2022 from her maternal uncle is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Commission.

20. In view of the above, we find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of about 275 days. The present revision is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

21. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.

22. Accordingly the revision is dismissed in limini being barred by limitation.

23. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of accordingly.