Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member (Oral) -1. The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Complainant against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) dated 22.2.2017 in Appeal No. 234 of 2016 against the order dated 1.2.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short “the District Forum”) for the modification of the order in his Complaint No. 954 of 2010.IA 2292 of 2020 (condonation of delay)2. The present Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 903 days and along with this Petition, IA 2292 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay has also been filed.3. I have heard the arguments on the application seeking condonation of delay in filingthe present Revision Petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner had never received copy of the impugned order as he was out of the country, i.e., in USA and Canada since 24.7.2016. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner had left the country on 17.5.2017 and returned on 4.8.2017. He stayed in the country for about one month and again left on 4.9.2017. The Petitioner, thereafter, returned to India on 18.8.2018, stayed for almost one month and again left the country on 15.9.2018 and is still out of the country. Learned Counsel has argued that the Petitioner stayed in the country for only 119 days and therefore, could not file the Revision Petition within the period of limitation.4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The only ground urged is that during the period of 903 days from the date of passing of the impugned order, since the Petitioner at most of the time remained out of the country, he could not file the present Revision Petition. It is clear from the argument itself that the Petitioner had stayed in the country for 119 days. Apparently, he had enough time to file the Revision Petition. He did not bother to file the Revision Petition within the period of 90 days provided under the Act. From the very fact that this Revision Petition has now been filed despite the fact that he is still out of the country, shows that his absence from the country is no reason for his inability to file the Revision Petition.5. It is a settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and sufficient causes/reasons which prevented a person from filing the Revision Petition/Appeal within the period of limitation are required to be shown. It has been so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Limited, 1961 (SLT SOFT) 168=AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, as under:“12. 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 Section 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.”6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) SLT 701=I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)=I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24, that true guide to judge whether the delay is reasonable or sufficient is to see whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:“5. 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.”7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further cautioned this Commission in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)=(2011) 14 SCC 578, that while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the special nature of period of limitation provided therein has to be kept in mind. It has been so held:“5. 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 Fora.”8. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the Petitioner has miserably failed to show any sufficient reason of such nature which prevented him from filing the present Revision Petition. As discussed above, the only ground given is that the Petitioner remained out of the country for most of the time and therefore, could not file the Revision Petition within time. From the argument it is apparent that the Petitioner is still out of the country and now the Revision Petition has been filed, therefore, his absence from the country is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel for
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
the Petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bagidhola Tea & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Hira Lal Somani dated 7.12.2007, and by this Commission in Allahabad Bank v. Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr., II (2015) CPJ 551 (NC)=Dated 8.9.2014, and Senior Manager, Canara Bank & Anr. v. Nirmal Laxmandas, Jithvani & Anr., Dated 11.7.2016. The findings in these cases are on different set of facts and distinguishable and do not help the Petitioner. The application has no merits. The application is dismissed.9. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed being barred by limitation.Revision Petition dismissed.