AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the petitioners present. Arguments heard.
There is delay of 402 days in filing the present revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in paras 3,4,5,6 and 7, which run as under: "3. That the Hon''ble State Commission delivered the impugned judgment on 04.12.2013. The learned Advocate applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment on the same day i.e. 04.12.2013. The same was ready on 24.12.2013 and Advocate for the petitioner obtained the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 24.12.2013.
The Advocate sent all the relevant documents and certified copy of the impugned judgment to the officer concerned regarding opinion for filing revision petition before this Court.
The concerned Officer processed the file and sent Vakalatnama and instructions to file Revision Petition before this Hon''ble Commission.
Thereafter the Officer-In-Charge contacted the office of the counsel on 22.04.2015. The Revision Petition was prepared and sent to the officer in charge for verification and modification.
That after receipt of the affidavit some time was taken in the translation/typing of the relevant Annexures and after making the Petition complete in all respects the same is being filed without any further delay."
It is thus clear that the petitioners have taken a lame excuse in explaining the delay. Day to day delay was never explained.
The expression ''sufficient cause'' cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay.
In a case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 itself, the Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority , IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), held that " 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 ".
Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108;Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC).
The Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013. Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.
Further, the Supreme Court Bench consisting of Hon''ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon''ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel vide its order dated 22.9.2014, in a recent authority titled as Munish Singhal v. Sangita Dixit and Ors., SLP No. 24872 of 2014 , has not condoned the delay of 15 months. Inordinate delay of 372 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ms. Sharmistha Das, SLP No. 14273 of 2013 decided on 13.1.2015.
There is huge delay in filing this revision petition, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by time.