w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


M/s. Rajashree Construction v/s Nantu Dey & Another

    Review Application No. 1 of 2020 in Complaint Case No. 8 of 2016
    Decided On, 22 September 2022
    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellant: None appears. For the Respondents: None appears.


Judgment Text
Manojit Mandal, President

The Applicant / original Opposite Party No. 2 in complaint case No. CC/8/2016 has filed the present review application under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended upto date (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 10/12/2018 passed by this Commission in connection with Complaint case No. CC/8/2016. Along with this review application, the application for condonation of delay was filed wherein it was prayed as under:-

“In the facts and circumstances the Applicant herein praying for condonation of delay for filing the application for review and to pass such other order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”

The applicant herein prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application for review and to pass such other order / orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.

The condonation of delay was sought on the grounds that the applicant was precluded from preferring this review application within a period of 30 days due to illness of the Applicant Smt. Debjani Ghosh as well as her financial condition was very bad. She could not properly followed up the cases, filed against her one after another by the Complainant / Respondent No. 1 herein. To explain the delay Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the delay in filing the instant review application was for financial conditions and the said delay was simply occurred due to illness of Smt. Debjani Ghosh. He has further submitted that the delay has not been occurred due to willful latches or negligence whatsoever on the part of the Applicant. So, the application for condonation of delay should be allowed.

Upon hearing the Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant and on perusal of the record including the application for condonation of delay it appears to us that the present review application has been filed under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

To adjudicate of this issue we deem it appropriate to refer to section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-

“Review by State Commission in certain cases. – The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.“

On perusal of the said statutory provisions, it is clear to us that the application for review of the order should be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. On perusal of the record produced before us it is clear that the impugned order was passed on 10/12/2018 and the present review application was filed on 02/09/2020 i.e. after a delay of 600 days. The office has also submitted a report that this application has been filed with a delay of 600 days.

In order to condone the delay of said 600 days, the applicant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the application after the statutory period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained. The term “sufficient cause” has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any ”sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose”.

8. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under:-

“12. ………….. we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of 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 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.”

From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble National Commission, it is clear that ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any ‘sufficient cause’ from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.”

Reverting to the materials available before us paras 3,4 & 5 of the application for condonation of delay is the explanation given by the Applicant for the delay caused in filing this application. It is clear that the impugned order was passed on 10/12/2018 and the application was supposed to be filed by 09/01/2019 i.e. within 30 days from the date of the impugned order. The Applicant has filed the present application on 02/09/2020 which is after a delay of 600 days.

On perusal of the application filed by the Applicant and on careful perusal of the materials on record, it appears to us that in the Application it is stated that the Applicant was ill from the period of January, 2019 to July, 2019 and was under the treatment and her financial condition was very bad. But the record goes to show the Applicant has filed only five prescriptions to prove her case. On perusal of the said prescriptions it appears to us that the Applicant Smt. Debjani Ghosh was suffering from arthritis of left knee joint. There is no whisper in the said prescriptions that Doctor advised the Applicant to take bed rest for the period from January, 2019 to till July, 2019. The Applicant has not explained properly the cause of delay for filing the appeal in between July, 2019 to 02/09/2020. Therefore, it may be concluded that the delay in filing the instant application has not been explained properly.

Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that the State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. On careful perusal of the order dated 10/12/2018 passed by this Commission goes to show that there is nothing on record to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, this Co

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
mmission has got no right to rectify or modify the said order as there is no mistake in the said order dated 10/12/2018. On careful perusal of the record being Execution Case No. EA/51/2019 arising out of Complaint case No. 8/2016 it also appears to us that the order dated 10/12/2018 passed by this Commission has already been executed in part and registration of the property has already been completed through this Commission. Under this facts and circumstances and on consideration of the materials available on record it appears to us that the present review application is not maintainable in law and is liable to be rejected. In the result, the review application shall stand dismissed in limini. However, in the facts of the case there shall be no orders as to costs. The review application is thus disposed of accordingly.
O R