The significance of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay and the requirement for a just and equitable balance between the rights of the parties.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant/MTNL under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is directed against order dated 19th May, 1999, passed by District Forum-V, in Complaint Case No. 523/1998 — entitled M/s. Sagoon Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, in the District Forum averring that telephone No. 636032 was installed at 42-Friends Colony, New Delhi, and the respondent vide application dated 7.1.1994 had applied for the shifting of the abovesaid telephone to Flat No. 105, Pocket-A1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-85, for the use of its Legal Adviser. It was stated by the respondent in the complaint that the concerned functionary of the appellant had issued an O.B. for the shifting of the abovesaid telephone on 5.4.1994 but despite issue of OB and repeated requests by the respondent the telephone in question was not shifted. The respondent in the complaint, filed before the District Forum had claimed a compensation to the extent of Rs. 1.00 lac on the ground that the telephone in question was to be shifted for the use of its Legal Adviser and due to the non-shifting of the telephone, the respondent had to suffer considerable loss.

3. The claim of the respondent was contested by the appellant in the District Forum. The stand taken by the appellant in the written statement/written version was that due to technical problems, the telephone in question could not be shifted. It was stated in the written statement/written version, filed by the appellant in the District Forum that there was no ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the appellant.

4. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the appellant and has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation within two months from the date of the order.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings, was passed by the learned District Forum on 19.5.1999. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, the present appeal should have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. However, proviso to the above section provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the abovesaid period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the same within the abovesaid period. Admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of thirty days. The same has been filed on 30.11.1999. Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Thereafter on 23.12.1999 the appellant has also filed an additional affidavit detailing therein the reasons for not filing the appeal in time. In the abovesaid application and in the additional affidavit dated 23.12.1999, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it is stated that the copy of the impugned order was received on 26.5.1999 in the Area Office and the same was sent to the legal cell of the Headquarter of the appellant on 21.6.1999. It is further stated that the impugned order was put up before the SDE (Legal) on 23.7.1999 and the SDE (Legal) after examining the same, put up the same before the AGM (Legal), who opined that there was scope for filing the appeal. It is further stated that on 2.9.1999 an Advocate was nominated for preparing the appeal and the file was handed over to the Ad