PROFESSIONAL COURIERS vs R. Kaliyamoorthy And Ors.

IN this revision petition filed by Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 2, there is challenge to impugned order dated 29.6.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, ''State Commission''). Alongwith this revision, an application seeking condonation of delay of 1260 days has also been filed.

RESPONDENT No. 1/Complainant filed a consumer complaint against Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2/Opposite Party No. 1, on the allegations that petitioner has not delivered the medical report entrusted to it for delivery. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of the petitioner.

CONSUMER complaint was contested by the petitioner. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem (for short, ''District Forum'') vide its order dated 29.4.2008, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay, either individually or jointly a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/ - towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - towards cost.

AGGRIEVED by order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission in the year 2008.

ON 29.6.2011, when appeal came up for hearing, as none was present on behalf of petitioner the same was dismissed for default.

THE impugned order, read as under; "No representation for the Appellant for several hearings. The appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and disposal. Appellant not present. No representation. Appeal is dismissed for default."

HENCE , the present revision.

IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner did not receive the free copy of the impugned order passed by the State Commission and got knowledge of the same only, when he got notice under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. it is further submitted, that previous counsel had not been attending the court on various dates before the State Commission to pursue the appeal. Hence, the delay should be condoned and revision be allowed as Petitioner is not at fault.

AS is apparent from the impugned order, neither petitioner nor its counsel were appearing before the State Commission, for several hearings. Even after dismissal of petitioner''s appeal for default, petitioner did not become wiser and has filed the present petition with delay of 1260 days.

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

IN Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. 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 Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, : 2009 (2) Scale 108, the Apex Court 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. Vs. 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".

AGAIN Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal 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 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".

AS per averments made in the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has shifted the entire burden of delay upon his counsel. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner took any action against his previous counsel for alleged gross negligence committed by him, in pursuing the appeal before the State Commission.

IT is also surprising to note, that petitioner waited for 1260 days for filing present revision but did not take the trouble of knowing about the status of his case. It was the duty of the petitioner also to have enquired about the decision of the case, from its counsel. It is well settled that a litigant must also post itself, regarding day to day hearing of its case. The above facts, clearly goes on to show that negligence and inaction on the part of petitioner is writ large in this case. The long delay of 1260 days under these circumstances cannot be condoned.

AS observed above, petitioner had been pursuing this litigation in a very casual and careless manner before the State Commission, since neither petitioner nor its counsel were present before the State Commission for several hearings. Be that as it may, even after getting adverse finding from the State Commission, petitioner did not become wiser. Here before this commission also petitioner has filed the present revision petition after a long delay of 1260 days for which no sufficient grounds have been shown.

THEREFORE , under these circumstance, the State Commission has not committed any illegality nor there is any jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal, when neither, petitioner nor its counsel were appearing before the State Commission for several hearings.

ACCORDINGLY , application for condonation of delay filed before this Commission stand dismissed and consequently, the present revision petition also stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees Five Thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit above cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" within six weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

LIST on 24.7.2015 for compliance.