1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the ‘Act’) against impugned order dated 18.09.2023, passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.A/70/2022 whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal being barred by limitation.

2.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant contended that the delay in filing the First Appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The learned State Commission ought to have condoned the marginal delay in filing the Appeal and decided the matter on merits. He contended that the petitioner has a very strong case on merit and therefore, sought to allow the present Revision Petition and the impugned order passed by the State Commission be set aside. The Petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

i. Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari and Ors., 1968 SCC OnLine SC 139;

ii. The State of West Bengal vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Ors., (1972) I Supreme Court Cases 366;

iii. Dharmendra Goel vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 279;

iv.Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors., (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 336;

v. Sumit Kumar Saha vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 370.

3.      The learned Counsel for the Respondent/OP argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission and asserted that the Respondent/OP has already paid the claim of the complainant as assessed by the surveyor.  He further argued that the appeal which was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was hopelessly barred by the law of limitation and therefore he sought dismissal of the Revision Petition with costs.

4.      Heard the learned counsels and examined the records.

5.      The reasons for delay in the M.A. No.148 of 2022 seeking Condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal No.70/2022 filed before the State Commission given as under:

“1. That the Applicant/ appellant have filed the accompanying appeal against the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No. 229/2016 wherein the complaint file by the applicant has been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum Mandi, H.P. The said appeal is barred by around 517 days.

2. That the applicant appellant most humbly submits that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor intentional but for the facts and reasons mentioned hereinafter.

3. That the applicant filed the consumer complaint no. 299/2016 before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, HP in the year 2016 against the non applicant and diligently pursued it before the Ld. Forum through his advocate till the year 2018 i.e. .19.11.2018, when the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed by the L.d. District Forum.

4. That as is evident from the certified copy of the order dated 19.11.2018, the date of preparation is 24.11.2018 and the date of issuance is 26.11.2018. That it is further submitted that the copy of the order dated 19.11.2018 was received by the applicant on or about 29/30.11.2018.

5. That after receiving the copy of the order dated 19.11.2018 vide which the complaint as filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Ld. Forum below by taking hyper technical view and on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the applicant contacted his counsel and visited his office, who had conducted the case at Mandi. The counsel told the applicant that since the complaint has been wrongly dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, it has to be challenged by way of appeal before the Hon'ble HP State Consumer Commission at Shimla as arguable points arise in this case. The counsel also handed over the entire case record/file to the applicant.

6. That thereafter, the applicant in the month of December itself for the purpose of filing appeal and engaging an advocate visited Shimla along with the entire case record and met Sh. Vikram Thakur, Advocate at his Office on 57/1 the Mall Road Shimla. The case was discussed with the Ld. Advocate and the advocate fees was also given to him as mutually agreed and certain papers including vakalatnama was also signed by the applicant That thereafter, the applicant was told by the Ld. Counsel that the appeal will be accordingly filed before this Hon'ble Commission within the Limitation period. The applicant was further told by the Ld. Counsel that the applicant need not visit Shimla again as the presence of the applicant is not required in the case to be filed before this Hon'ble Commission and also the applicant is not required to remain present before this Hon'ble commission on each and every date and the applicant will be telephonically informed accordingly about the status of the case before this Hon'ble Commission and the applicant need not call the Ld. Counsel time and again That on inquiry the applicant was further told by the Ld. Counsel that it usually takes around more than one year before This Hon'ble Commission for decision in such kind of cases.

7. That as such, the applicant did not enquire about the case from the Ld. Counsel for about one year on being reasonably assured that the applicant will be informed by the Ld. Counsel as and when the appeal will be decided by this Hon'ble Commission.

8. That thereafter, in the year 2020 the applicant made telephone calls to the Ld. Counsel on which the applicant was told that the courts/commissions are not functioning due to corona pandemic and ensuing lockdown by the government and no cases are being listed before this Hon'ble Commission. The applicant was further told that the Hon'ble Apex Court has protected the interest of Litigants during the lockdown and the limitation period has been extended and the applicant should not worry about the case and that the applicant will be duly informed as and when case will be listed before this Hon'ble Commission.

9. That in the month of October, in the year 2021, the applicant once again called the Ld. Counsel who again told the applicant that the matters are not being listed before this Hon'ble Commission due to the lockdown and corona pandemic and the applicant will be accordingly told about the listing and the decision of the case as and when the matter will be listed before this Hon'ble Commission.

10. That the applicant on being assured did not call the Ld. Counsel after this. That thereafter, in the month of March when the economic activities in the country started after opening by the Government, the applicant thought that now the functioning of the courts and tribunals must have started and the since the applicant did not receive any call from the Ld. Counsel as such with much trepidation the applicant called the Ld. Counsel couple of times in the first and second week in month of March 2022, but the number came not reachable couple of times.

11. That thereafter, when the applicant called the Ld. Counsel in the last week of the March 2022, the call of the applicant was not picked by the Id. Counsel and when the applicant called repeatedly the phone was switched off by the Ld. Counsel. This act was repeated a number of times in the month of April and May 2022 but with the same result.

12. That since the applicant became suspicious on his calls be not picked and phone being switched off by the Ld. Counsel, as such the applicant decided to visit Shimla and contact the Ld counsel That thereafter, the applicant visited Shimla in June 2022 and went to the Office of Ld. counsel on the Mall road on 24.06.2022. The Ld. Counsel met the applicant and apologized for his conduct and further told the applicant that due to family problem ie. illness in the family he was much occupied and mentally disturbed as such the appeal of the applicant could not be filed before this Hon'ble commission nor the applicant could/was informed about the same.

13. That thereafter, the applicant took the entire case file and record along with the copy of impugned order and handed over the same to the counsel after engaging him on 26.06.2022.

14. That thereafter, the present counsel of the applicant prepared the appeal and the present application and the same is being filed before this Hon'ble Commission without undue delay.

15. That the applicant has not gained anything by making the appeal as time barred rather the applicant will suffer great prejudice if the appeal is not heard and decided on merits.

16. That the facts stated hereinabove constitutes sufficient cause which prevented them in filing the appeal within the stipulated time before this Commission and it is submitted that the appeal of the applicant may kindly be heard on merits to advance substantial justice and also the mandate of the Act.

17. That it is submitted that the aim and objective of the Consumer Protection Act is to protect the interest of the consumers and to advance substantial justice, therefore in view of this the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be heard on merits.

18. That the delay in filing the appeal is due to the bona-fide reason and facts stated supra. That no prejudice will be caused to the opposite party in case the delay of around 517 days (the period of 15.03.2021 to 28.02.2022 stands excluded as per the order dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Suo motto WP (Civil) 3/2020) in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits in accordance with law.

          It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the delay of around 517 days in filing the accompanying appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be heard on merits.

          Any other order and or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed.”

6.      As regards 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.”

7.      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.”

8.      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".

9.      To condone such a 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.”

10.    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.”

11.    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.”

12.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Civil Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 decided on 08.04.2024 held:

“30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).”

13.    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.

14.    In the present case, the Petitioner admittedly filed the Appeal before the State Commission with the delay of 456 days. The Petitioner has also mentioned in the Application seeking Condonation of delay before the State Commission any specific dates or necessary details mentioned as to what were the reasons for not filing the Appeal within time. These details were essential for consideration for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal before the State Commission. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the learned State Commission has rightly not condoned the delay.

15.    In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned State Commission. Therefore, the present Revision Petition No. 2714 of 2023 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 

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