This Appeal impugns orders dated 10.01.2023 and 12.06.2023 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Siliguri (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint Case No.11 of 2022.  Vide order dated 10.01.2023, the Opposite Parties (Appellants herein) were placed ex parte on the ground that none had appeared despite service of notice.  Against this order, the Appellants had filed a petition for vacating the order dated 10.01.2023 which was rejected vide order dated 12.06.2023 on the ground that there was a statutory bar on the State Commission to review its own order. 

2.     I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties on IA 9933 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing of this Appeal. 

3.     The grounds urged by the Appellants are that the counsel engaged in the Complaint could not appear before the State Commission on 10.01.2023 resulting in the order declaring them ex parte.  Thereafter, it came to their knowledge in April 2023 that the date of hearing of the Complaint was fixed for 12.06.2023.  It is submitted that the Appellant applied on 12.06.2023 for vacating the ex parte order.  The same was turned down by way of the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission could not review its own order.  The delay from the date of order declaring the Appellants ex parte is 164 days and in the case of subsequent order dated 12.06.2023 the delay sought to be condoned is 13 days which is prayed to be allowed on the ground that the delay was not deliberate.  Learned Counsel has relied on Ashok Kumar vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2023 Supreme Court 3622, Smt. Lachi Tewari and Others vs. Director of Land Records and Others, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 41 and Rafiq & Anr. vs. Munshilal & Anr., Civil Appeal No.1415 of 2981 decided on 16.04.1981.

4.     Learned Counsel for the Respondents argued that as laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., I (2016) CPJ 1 (SC), the statutory period of 30 days for filing of the written version has been considered to be reasonable and adequate and extension of only 15 days has been permitted.  Therefore, the Appellants had enough opportunity before the State Commission which they did not avail.  The State Commission has acted within the terms of this judgment in passing the impugned order.      

5.     It is seen that the Appellants were represented before the State Commission through a counsel who had put in appearance.  No reason for not appearing on 10.01.2023 has been provided.  It is only stated that the counsel had failed to mark his diary regarding appearance in CC No.11 of 2012.  The subsequent order of the State Commission dated 12.06.2023 has been passed in accordance with the statutory provision that does not permit the State Commission to review its own order.  The counsel appearing for the Appellants should have been aware of this legal provision and should have filed an Appeal against the order dated 10.01.2023 rather than to spend time in seeking a remedy from the State Commission which was not within its jurisdiction. By its own admission, the appellant was aware of this order even in April 2023 but did not choose to pursue the matter till June 2023 when its review was rejected. The contentions of the Respondents in opposing this IA cannot be faulted. 

6.     In Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.”

7.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC),  has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not.  The court has held as under:

"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.”

8.     While dealing with the matters under the Act, it has been held in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein.  The court has held as under:

“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 Fora."

9.     In light of the foregoing, it is seen that this Appeal has been filed much beyond the prescribed period of filing of an Appeal and the delay of 164 days has not been sufficiently explained.  While delays can be condoned, it is necessary that the cause shown is sufficient and is based on cogent reasons.  In view of the fact that Section 24A of the Act has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be a ‘legislative command’ as per State Bank of India vs. B. S. Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121, the contentions of the Appellants cannot be sustained.

10.     For the foregoing reasons, IA 9933 of 2023 is liable to be disallowed. The Appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation.  No order as to costs.