PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner present.  Arguments heard.  There was a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal as barred by time.  The petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission.  The delay is explained in para Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, which are reproduced here as under:-

“2.         That the aforesaid case was being conducted by the advocate engaged by the appellant in Basti and the case was being monitored by the office at Lucknow.

3.  That the office at Lucknow periodically monitors the cases of the entire state of U.P. That the manager Legal in Lucknow office while reviewing the cases of Basti and other Districts on 30.11.2013 enquired about the status of cases and during this enquiry it transpired from the lawyer at Basti who in turn informed that the judgments have been passed against us and the certified copy has already been applied and have been received by the junior, but he due to bonafide slip of mind could not inform the same to the company.

4.  That immediately thereafter the lawyer was instructed to apply for copy of entire proceedings for preparation of appeal.

5.  That the said documents were received in Lucknow office on 7.12.2013, thereafter the lawyer was instructed to prepare the appeal and file it urgently.”

2.      It is, thus clear that the appellant was not aware that what was the date of hearings in its case.  The case was already decided on 18.09.2013 and they came to know about the same on 30.11.2013.  This shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner.  In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel  did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case.

3.      From the application itself it appears that the petitioner was not aware of the previous dates as well. Day to day delay was not explained.

The petitioner was not aware, when the final arguments were heard and when the case was reserved and the judgment was passed.  The name of the advocate was also not disclosed.  No affidavit of the advocate saw the light of the day.  Similar view was taken in Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83 & Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845.

4.      It must be held that 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 Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act.  There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation.  The Apex Court in the case under the C.P.Act itself, in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), held that “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 Foras”. 

5.      Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

6.      In a very recent authority, because no explanation for condonation of delay was given, therefore, the National Commission did not condone the delay of 13 days.  The reference to that case may be made as follows. Titled as, “Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.”  in Revision Petition No. 985 of 2013 decided on 07.10.2013, presided by the three members’ Bench, headed by  Hon’ble Justice D.K. Jain.  

7.      Aggrieved by that order, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)  No. 37183 of 2013 was filed.  The Hon’ble  Supreme Court  dismissed the same on 17.12.2013.

8.      No sufficient explanation is forthcoming.  We see no reason to reverse the order of the State Commission.  The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.