The case is put up today for passing of order on a petition Dtd:23.03.2022 u/Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code which was filed by the Opposite Party no.5 representing all the opposite parties.

                        The complainant has filed his counter on 10.11.2023.

                        For hearing on the petition (supra), the complainant was present on 09.01.2024. The Commission heard-in-part from the Complainant and fixed the date to 30.01.24 for further hearing and Order. However on 30.01.24, the opposite party no.5 was present and submitted on the petition dtd: 23.03.2022 but the complainant found absent and no steps taken.

                        The Commission perused the petition dtd:23.03.2022 of the Opposite Party no.5 and counter of the Complainant dtd: 10.11.2023, it is apparent from the case record that, the op no.5 is representing for all other opposite parties in this case in accordance to the Petition dated: 12.01.2022 which has accepted by the Commission.

The complainant has filed a counter on 10.11.2023 without affidavit. On analysing of the complaint and evidences available in the case records, the complainant has not approached the Commission in clean hand. And further the Complainant also not explained each day of delay from 20.12.2013 to 03.12.2021 i.e., for the around 7 years. Hence it is barred by limitation u/Sec.69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Commission relied upon the Judgment in Orchid Travel & Tours v. Kamini Chauchan & 2 ors. in Revision Petition No.:1376 of 2023, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that, “condonation of delay is not an automatic right but requires the person requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of delay and demonstrate a reasonable ground for not approaching the court within the limitation period.” 

The Complainant relied upon the advocate notices issued to the opposite parties on 03.02.2020, 01.12.2021 and another notice without date filed the present case. This Commission by relying upon a Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Surjeet Singh Sahani v. State of U.P. in SLP (C) 3008 of 2022 disposed of on 28.02.2022 that, “as observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation.” Hence the issuance of the notices on 03.02.2020 and 01.12.2021 by the complainant to the opposite parties cannot be extended the period of limitation to file the case.

The case in hand attracts the Doctrine of clean hands. Thus, one who seeks the aid of equity must come into Court with clean hands. Hence a clear inference can be drawn in the instant case that, the complainant has not approached the Commission in clean hands. In the landmark case of Ramjas Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India & Others, (2010) 14 SCC 38, Hon’ble Apex Court has univocally held as under –

“21. The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Article 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in other Courts and Judicial Forums.”

Therefore, the principle laid down in the above cases is very much applicable to the present case and relying upon the ratio decidendi of the Orchid (Supra), Ramjas (Supra) and Surjeet (Supra) the Commission is left with no alternative but to dismiss the complaint against the opposite parties. No order as to cost. This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Order is to be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Order is to be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Order.