HUDA vs SHAKUNTALA DEVI

AGAINST the order of the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. An application for condonation of delay of 181 days was also filed. The State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as barred by time by observing: "It has been expressly provided in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that any person aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of period of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the stipulated period. The expression ''sufficient cause '' has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, as it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time while examining the question of condonation of delay, it has to be kept in mind that it is the duty of the condoning authority to record satisfaction of the explanation submitted as to whether it is reasonable and satisfactory which is essential pre-requisite for condonation of delay. It is equally well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity as well as on the ground of generosity. As regards the ground taken in the first application it would transpire that totally vague and ambiguous assertion has been made. Except the reason that appellant Estate Officer, Rewar was having the dual charge of the office of SDM, no sufficient reason was given by the appellant for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It cannot be ignored that there is a delay of 181 days in filing the appeal and no datewise movement of the file has been mentioned in the application. The appellant has failed to mention that on which date matter was put up before him (Estate Officer) and on which date decision to file the appeal was taken. As far as the departmental delay is concerned, it has been observed by the Hon ''ble National Commission in case titled Union of India v. Vijay Laxmi, reported in 2006 (1) CPC 61 (N.C.), where the petitioner claimed condonation of 65 days delay in filing the revision petition on the ground that the delay occurred as the matter had to be examined at various levels by the various Government departments. While repelling the prayer made it was observed that the petitioner had not disclosed the datewise movement of the file from one table to another table. It was further stated that no urgency had been shown from the side of the petitioner and the approach had been casual and for that reason it was not condoned. The Hon ''ble Apex Court has also observed in case titled State of Nagaland v. Lipokao and Others, reported in 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 414, that "proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay ". Further in case titled D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 322, it has been held by the Hon ''ble Apex Court that "when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only ". Under the circumstances, the reasons given in the application were taken as inadequate and insufficient to condone the delay. The ratio of the above mentioned case fully applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the ground stated in the application cannot constitute sufficient cause so as to condone the delay in filing the appeal as prayed for in the application from the side of the appellants. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected. "

STATE Commission decided the appeal on merits as well and upheld the order passed by the District Forum. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 181 days in filing the appeal. Time prescribed for filing the appeal is 30 days. Consumer Fora are required to decide the cases in a time bound manner i.e. 90 days from the date of filing where no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken. Delay of 181 days could not be condoned without showing sufficient cause and movement of file from one table to another table cannot be a sufficient cause. It has been held in innumerable cases by the Supreme Court and by this Commission that delay cannot be condoned on the ground that the file was moving from table to table to get the sanction to file the appeal. The revision petition is dismissed. We are not recording any opinion on merit. Revision Petition dismissed.