M/S. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt Ltd. vs B.K. Uday Sanyasi Rao

HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

THE opposite party while preferring the appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 22.11.2011 filed the appeal along with this application to condone the delay of 367 days. The petitioner is a chit fund company and has filed this petition to condone a delay 367 days in filing the appeal on the ground that its counsel did not intimate passing of orders in the complaint. Later when the concerned officer resumed duty, he came to know about the passing of orders and accordingly brought all relevant papers from the counsel and sent to the Central Office at Secunderabad and as such a delay of 367 days was ensued in filing the appeal. The delay was neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore he prayed that the delay be condoned.

IN the light of the fact that delay was 367 days without any material whatsoever to substantiate the delay, we do not wish to order any notice to the respondent as no improvement could be made by the petitioner/appellant. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code or provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act to order notice before resolving the issue. The matters have to be resolved by applying principles of natural justice, equity, etc.

THE point that arises for consideration is whether there are justifiable grounds to condone delay? The learned counsel submitted that in the compliant, in his affidavit and the arguments it stated that the amount has received. It is all the more important that the appellant/opposite party having contested the case before the District Forum and filed his counter and affidavit ought to have preferred the appeal within stipulated period and we also did not find any substantial ground in the reasons given for condonation of inordinate delay of 367 days. Evidently the appeal was filed with the aforementioned petition with a routine and rigmarole plea without any iota of evidence . All these pleas are raised to get over the delay in re-submitting the appeal within the time allowed.

IN a latest decision the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in AnshuAgarawal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) opined "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. With the above observations, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the special leave petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. "

IN a latest decision the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Lanka Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 363 held: "reasonable exercise of discretionary power and discretionary power should be exercised systematically informed by reasons. Liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not over-ride substantial law of limitation, especially when court finds no justification for delay ".

We may also state herein that the respondent should not be denied the right accrued to him on expiry of limitation provided to prefer an appeal. If he receives summons or notices after a lapse of time he may be surprised and may not be able to comprehend as to when the litigation would come to an end. As was opined the explanation has to be reasonable, plausible and believable. Mere explanation is not sufficient for condoning the delay in favour of the applicant. If it does not satisfy the ingredients , and that it does not reflect ''sufficient cause '' then the application should be dismissed. When consistently routine and rigmarole facts are pleaded without any justification or proof condonation of exorbitant delay cannot be made. In the light of the fact that the delay is deliberate we do not intend to condone.

IN the result the petition is dismissed consequently the appeal is rejected. No costs.