Golden Multi Services Ltd vs Basanti Device

THE petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, "the State Commissin") dated 26.7.2011 whereby the appeal No.841/2008 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for non -prosecution, has filed this revision petition.

THE revision petition, however, has been filed with inordinate delay. Therefore, the petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that delay in filing of the revision petition is unintentional. Actually on coming to know about the dismissal of the appeal in default, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the impugned order. The State Commission, however, vide order dated 16.7.2013 dismissed the application in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr." (Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2001). It is contended that thereafter the petitioner applied for free copy which was supplied to him on 30.6.2014 and if the period of delay is computed from 30.6.2014, the delay is only to the extent of 269 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appeal has been dismissed without hearing. Therefore, in interest of justice delay in filing the revision petition be condoned ad revision petition be disposed of on merits. We do not find merit in this contention. The conduct of the petitioner per se is grossly negligent. Even if we accept that the period of delay from the date on which free copy of the order of the State Commission dated 16.7.2013 was received, then also there is a gross delay of 269 days for which no explanation what so ever has been given. Law on condonation of delay is well settled.

IN Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361, it has been observed; "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."

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 2 Scale 108, it has been observed: "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."

HON ''ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,2012 2 CPC 3 observed 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 Foras".

IN view of the discussion above, since no plausible reason for condonation of delay is shown, we are not inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay. IA No.1029/2015 for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.