1.      This Revision Petition No.890 of 2020 challenging the impugned order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred as ‘State Commission’) dated 29.02.2020 wherein the IA No.1/2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal No.798 of 2019 was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant had not sufficiently demonstrated the reasons for delay of 45 days as bonafide.

2.      The learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the State Commission had erred while dismissing the Appeal on account of delay of 45 days in filing the same. This delay of 45 days was neither intentional nor malafide, rather bonafide due to the reasons as given in the Application seeking condonation of delay and the same ought to have been condoned and the First Appeal ought to have been decided on merits as the Petitioner has a good case on merits.  She relied upon the following judgments in support of the arguments:

(i) State of Karnataka Vs. Y. Moideen Kunhi, (2009) 13 SCC 192;

(ii) State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors, AIR 1996 SC 1623;

(iii) G. Ramegowda and Ors. Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 3 SCR 198.

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 judgment in the case of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices Vs. Gangabai, R.P. No.895 of 2018 decided by the NCDRC.

4.      In the Application seeking condonation of delay being I.A. No. I.A. No.1/2019, the Petitioner had mentioned as follows:

1) That the appellant has filed the instant appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Raigarh in complaint case no. 159/2019.

2)  That the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation of about ____ days. It is humbly submitted that the after the impugned order was passed the copy of the same was received by the counsel of the appellant at Raigarh and the same was sent to the head office of the appellant company at Jaipur. Thereafter the entire file along with the impugned order was sent to the counsel at Bilaspur for seeking opinion for preferring the appeal.

3) That the counsel at Bilaspur studied the entire file and the impugned order and given an opinion to file an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission, Raipur. After receipt of the opinion of the counsel at Bilaspur, the appellant took a decision to file the appeal against the impugned order.

4) The decision to file the appeal was intimated to counsel at Bilaspur and a request was made to draft the appeal against the impugned order. The counsel at Bilaspur drafted the appeal and was sent to the head office of the company at Jaipur for approval. Thereafter the approval was granted and the counsel at Bilaspur was requested to file the appeal.

5) That the appeal became barred by limitation in doing the above mentioned exercise by the appellant company. It is humbly submitted that the delay of about ___ days is bonalide and there is no deliberate delay in filing the appeal. It is humbly submitted that the reasons assigned by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal constitute sufficient cause

6) That looking to the reasons assigned and the nature of controversy involved in the appeal, it is prayed that the Hon'ble State Commission may take a liberal approach in deciding the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

7) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (AIR 1998 SC 3222) held as under":

11. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 749).

13.   It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.

8)    That the delay caused in because of procedural formalities and the delay is unintentional and bonfide.

An affidavit in support of the application is filed herewith.

PRAYER

It is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to allow the application and the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the appeal may kindly be heard on merits in the interest of justice.”

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 Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition/Appeal 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 45 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 the matter was taken up for seeking opinion of the Petitioner Head Office at Jaipur and when the opinion was receipt by the Counsel at Bilaspur and when took a decision to file the appeal against the impugned order and what was 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 29.02.2020 passed by the learned State Commission. Therefore, the present Revision Petition No.890 of 2020 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 

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