K.K. Ramasamy vs The Chief Executive Officer

THESE revision petitions have been filed with the delay ranging from 472 to 473 days, which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the cases in summary manner within a time frame, i.e., within 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken, and, within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken.

THE main grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought are reproduced a under; "The present is an application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petition. The Applicant/Petitioner states that the impugned order passed on 08.04.2013 and the same was made ready for issue on 18.04.2013 and the date of delivery/dispatch of free copy on 19.04.2013. On 15.05.2013 the Applicant/Petitioner received the impugned order. Wife of one Mr. S. Mohammed Parvaes one of the Complainant/Appellant/Petitioner in the similar issue before the District Forum, Hon''ble State Commission, had a fever on 18.04.2013 while diagnose the same it was notified as a "Mengeties (Brain Fever)". Thereafter she was admitted in the hospital for the period of more than 45 days the copy of medical report is enclosed. The above said fever leads partly paralysed the wife of Mr. S. Mohammed Parvaes. It is stated that the petitioner was assisted in the above matter one Mr. S. Mohammed Pervaes who is one of the petitioner in the similar issue before the District Forum, State Commission and this Hon''ble Commission. Thereafter the petitioner contacted the lawyer at Chennai in the month of September, 2013. During the month of October 2013 the Counsel at Chennai opined that, this is fit case for filing Revision before this Hon''ble Commission. Thereafter the petitioner went to Chennai during the month of October 2013 and collected relevant documents from the counsel. Meantime the files were mixed up in the office of the Appellant/Petitioner. Thereafter the same was traced out during the month of April 2014 and the same was informed to the Counsel at Chennai. Thereafter Chennai Counsel had discussion with counsel at New Delhi on 09.10.2014. On 11.10.2014 the Vakalats and Affidavits sent by the Counsel from Delhi by e -mail to the Applicant and the same was forwarded to Delhi alongwith documents on 18.10.2014 and the same was received on 20.10.2014. On 25.10.2014 and 27.10.2014. Thereafter, immediately the Delhi Counsel made a draft of the Revision Petition and forwarded to the Chennai Counsel for appropriate correction on 30.10.2014 (Thursday) and the same was re -forwarded by the Chennai Counsel on 31.10.2014 (Friday) and the Revision filed on 03.11.2014 (Monday).

In the process there is delay in filing the Revision Petition. The petitioner states that the delay in filing is neither intentional nor wanton. In case delay is not condoned, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. In the interest of justice the delay in filing be condoned."

It is well settled that "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

IN Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., : AIR 1962 Supreme Court 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 v. 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 Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in : (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; "We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.

The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji : (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy : (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil : (2001) 9 SCC 106."

THE only reason given for condonation of delay is that delay has occurred since wife of Petitioner S. Mohammed was admitted in hospital for period of more than 45 days due to "Mengeties (Brain Fever)" which led to partly paralysis of his wife.

PETITIONERS have not placed any medical record to this effect in support of their case. Be that as it may, there is no plausible explanation for long delay which was caused from October, 2013 to April, 2014. Again, it has not been explained as to why delay occurred from April, 2014 to October, 2014. Moreover, as per petitioners'' case their lawyer at Chennai in October, 2013, had opined that it is a fit case for filing of revision. After getting above legal advice, petitioners had chosen not to file the revision petitions for a period of about 13 months. We are not satisfied with the cause shown. Day -to -day delay has not been explained. Supreme Court in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal v. 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 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 the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are 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."

THE delay of 472/473 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. Applications for condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, above revision petitions stand dismissed as barred by limitation.