DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 289/2023

QUORUM:

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

ORDER

By this Order the Commission would dispose off the application of the complainant seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint. 

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the application are that he approached the counsel in 2018 to file a consumer case against the OP w.r.t. his vehicle which was stolen on 05.09.2016 and as such signed the complaint along with affidavit on 19.01.2018 and his counsel informed him that his case has been filed but counsel for complainant mis-guided him regarding the status of the case.  Thereafter, when the COVID period was over and when the complainant felt something suspicious in April 2023 he again approached his previous counsel to know the status of the case but was shocked to know that his case has already been disposed off as withdrawn on the statement made by the previous counsel, without the complainant’s instructions and that counsel had been mis-informing the complainant from the very beginning.  Then he applied for certified copies of the case which he got in May 2023 and engaged a new counsel and filed the present case before this Commission and it is submitted that the complaint along with affidavit was signed by him on 19.01.2018 but the counsel for complainant filed the same before consumer forum DCDRC North on 27.04.2018 and when it was listed for 03.05.2018 for the hearing the same was withdrawn by the counsel without informing to the complainant and till now the complainant was kept in dark.  It is further submitted that he could not file the present complaint in time as his real brother Sh. Harwan Singh expired on 02.09.2019, one of his sister namely Ms. Priyanka Kumari expired on 10.05.2021, and one of his brother’s wife namely Smt. Shakuntla also expired meanwhile and one of his aunt (Taai) namely Smt. Nirmala expired on 30.10.2020.  Not only this, during this period i.e. in 2019 the complainant has been involved in the marriages of his two sisters and also in the marriage of his daughter Ms. Sangeeta and therefore he could not keep the eye on the status of the case due to above mentioned responsibilities and now he has filed the present complaint after the delay of 945 days, and said delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, on the part of complainant but only for the reason explained herein above and it is prayed that delay in filing the complaint be condoned. 
2. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
3. The law w.r.t. condonation of delay is well settled that the liberal interpretation is to be taken while condoning the delay provided the same is reasonable and not actuated with malafide intentions i.e. if the applicant is not coming to the Commission within reasonable time of delay and then is not explaining the day to day delay in filing the complaint. 
4. Now, coming to the facts of the present case.  The contention of the complainant is that he appointed a counsel who withdrew the case without his information and he could not keep an eye on the proceedings on account of non-disclosure of the status of the proceedings by the counsel.  In the entire application there is no name of the counsel as to which counsel was appointed nor there is any complaint filed by the complainant against the said Counsel before the Bar Council of Delhi w.r.t. conduct of that counsel which interalia means that complainant is neither trying to annoy the previous counsel nor is able to tell as to whether the present counsel and previous counsel was the same person. There is complete silence on this aspect and therefore it cannot be said the complainant was diligent in perusing his complaint.  Further, the complainant was dismissed as withdrawn as per the application, on 03.05.2018 and the complainant in another para writes that there were three deaths in the family from 02.09.2019 upto 31.10.2020 and there were three marriages in the family during that period.  Instead of explaining the day to day delay the complainant is jumping to the dates from 02.09.2019 to 10.05.2021.  No doubt there after some pandemic situation in the year 2021 prevailed, yet all sorts of limitations w.r.t. extending the period of limitation have come to an end on 28.05.2022 and there is no explanation either from 03.05.2018 to 02.09.2019 nor there is any explanation after 28.05.2022 till the date of filing the complaint with present application.  Present case has been filed on 06.07.2023.  Therefore, the complainant has neither been able to explain day to day delay in the present matter nor is disclosing the name of the previous counsel and this does not bring him within the ‘reasonableness’ or ‘bonafide’.  The contention that his counsel has not been informing him is also of no consequence as apart from the counsel, the complainant himself has also to be vigilant for pursuing his matter.  Further, the dates as given by him rather suggests that he was aware of the dismissal of the matter but was not able to pursue the matter on account of exigencies in the family affairs w.r.t. certain deaths in the family and certain marriages in the family.   From these facts it also appears that the finding out of the status of the case was the last priority of the complainant.  The Commission does not expect such recklessness on the part of the complainant that he would not file the case after taking it back for about more than five years i.e. from 03.05.2018 to 06.07.2023.   
5. It is further stated that in the matter of “State of West Bangal Vs. Hawra Municipality (1972) SCR 2 (873)” the Hon’ble Apex Court while explaining the ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of Limitation Act, held that it must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, and generally delay has to be condoned in the  interest of justice  unless there is gross negligence or deliberate lack of bonafide, which is not imputable  to the  party seeking condonation. It is further  submits  that the delay has been explained sufficiently and not only this the Hon’ble Supreme Court  even in 2010 in case Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh, (2010)  8 (SCC) 685 report held in para 25 as under:

“we may state that even if the term “sufficient Cause” had to received liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of “reasonableness” as it is understood in its general connotation.

The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the 10 delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally.” 

6. It is further stated in the matter Dr. V.N. Srikhande Vs. Mrs. Anita Sena Furnandis i.e. Civil Appeal 8983 of 2010 deliver by Hon’ble Supreme Court and in para 18 it read as under:

“Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the basis of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation.”

7. Further, in Suranjan Biswas vs Ashoke Kumar Nath & Anr. on 15 November, 2021, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 15.11.2021 in first Appeal No.1005/2019 was held that:

“The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Mr. C. Vishwanath as the presiding member and Mr. J. Ram Surat Ram Maurya as a member recently observed that the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should be explained for every day of the delay. The bench observed this while dismissing a revision petition filed under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act-2019.”

8. Further, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1429 of 2016 of Soudharya Jewllers V/s Paidi Jaganadha Rao was held that:

It is also a settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”. The Hon’ble Court has held as under:

"5. 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.” 

9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances i.e. the vehicle was stolen on 05.09.2016 which was withdrawn on 03.05.2018, and then there is no day-to-day delay in explaining the cause of delay and then non-supplying any information for the period 03.05.2018 to 02.09.2019 and further from 28.05.2022 to the date of filing the complaint, there appears to be no ground to appreciate that there was any reasonableness or bonafide on the part of the complainant and as such there is no ground to condone the delay in filling the complaint.  Application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the complaint is rejected.  

File be consigned to Record Room.