JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. There is a delay of 357 days in filing the instant revision petition before this Commission. 2 It may also be mentioned here that the State Commission dismissed the appeal because there was delay of 829 days in filing the appeal. It is also surprising to note that learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed copy of application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission. This shows negligence on the part of the petitioner. However, the delay has been discussed in the impugned order dated 4.1.2013. The State Commission arrived at the following conclusion: “It is clear from prima facie perusal of records that the appellant has committed sufficient carelessness in filing the appeal and abnormal delay has been caused, about which no reasonable clarification has been given. Admittedly, the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2007 has been passed by the District Forum on merits while appeal has been filed on 24.02.2010 with delay of about 2 and ½ year. The bench is of the opinion that much delay can be condoned only when the circumstances are beyond control of the appellant or the copy of the judgment in question has been received by them with delay. The true copy of the judgment filed by the appellant with the appeal has been issued on 29.04.2008 by the concerned District Forum. Even if we calculate from the aforesaid date, the appeal has been filed with delay of about two years. It is also surprising that the appellant was thoughtful that the delay is being caused in filing the appeal but they issued notice to the concerned Assistant Clerk on 02.07.2009 after receiving the true copy meaning thereby after about one year. Even for sake of arguments, this point is taken in favour of the appellant, the appellant should have filed the appeal after issuance of notice to the Assistant Clerk on 02.07.2009 but the appellant filed appeal on 24.02.2010 committing carelessness on every stage, which reveals that the appellant has caused delay in filing appeal intentionally for implicit objectives, in giving the clarification they have failed at every stage.” 3. Warning bells should have rung and this revision petition should have been filed without any delay. The petitioner took about 357 days in filing this revision petition. 4. He has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which read thus. “3. That the petitioner got the information of the dismissal of the Appeal No. 318 of 2010 vide order dated 04.01.2013 through the Caveat Petition preferred by Respondent herein before this Hon’ble Commission, which was delivered on 23.03.2013 to the Petitioner accompanied by the impugned order herein dated 04.01.2013. 4. That the Petitioner-authority sought legal opinion from the concerned advocate to prefer instant revision petition, subsequently, the petitioner was informed regarding pendency of execution case No. 76 of 2011 in complaint case No. 1006 of 2013 filed by the Respondent/complainant before the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar, U.P. on 26.07.2013. 5. That the Law Section, Kanpur Development Authority was requested by Zone -3 Sales Section, Kanpur Development Authority to provide status of appeal No. 318/2010 along with the certified copy of the impugned order dated 04.01.2013 by way of sending some of the documents of the instant case on 01.08.2013 and the same was subsequently informed to Zone – 3 Sales Section, Kanpur Development Authority. 6. Thereafter, the concerned advocate was requested to provide certified copy of the impugned order vide letter dated 22.08.2013 and 31.08.2013. It is pertinent to note that the office of the petItioner was shifted from Moti Mahal Building, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow to Gomti Nagar, Lucknow which led to inadvertent delay in arranging requisite documents, availing clearance for filing instant revision petition. 7. Thereafter, permission was granted to prefer instant revision petition on 28.10.2013 and thereby the undersigned counsel for the petitioner was nominated to file the revision petition before Hon’ble National Commission during 01.11.2013” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case titled as Kanpur Development Authority vs. Narendra Kumar Dwivedi & Anr., SLP No. …/2014, arising out of order dated 11.9.2013 passed by this Commission, came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 was not a necessary party. 6. We are not aware of the facts of that case. At the eleventh hour i.e. at the time of calling this case, he has produced this two line order. Same be taken on record. This is not a certified copy. Admittedly this is a different case. 7. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay. Day to day delay was not explained. The Apex Court has already emphatically laid down that departmental and procedural delay is not a good ground for condonation of delay. Such like story can be crated at any time. The case is barred by time. 7. This view neatly dovetails with the Supreme Court authorities in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC), Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221. 8. We hereby dismiss the revision petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner is directed to pay the costs to the respondent within a period of 90 days otherwise it will carry interest @10% p.a. till its realisation. 9. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. |