The significance of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 10.11.1997, passed by District Forum No.-III, in Complaint Case No. 43/97 entitled — Shri P.C. Shirangannavar v. M/s. Anand Household Carriers & Anr.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had hired the services of respondent No. 1 for carrying his household goods from his residence, situated at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi to Borivili, Bombay, and had entrusted 32 packages, containing household goods, to respondent No. 1 for transportation from Shalimar Bagh, Delhi to Borivili, Bombay, on 15.9.1993. The abovesaid packages, as per the case of the appellant, could not be transported immediately and remained in the custody of respondent No. 1 at Delhi, due to All India Transport Operators’ strike. The goods were finally despatched by respondent No. 1 from Delhi to Bombay through respondent No. 2 vide consignment note dated 22.10.1993. It was stated in the complaint that the abovesaid consignment note (consignee’s copy) was received by the appellant on 4.11.1993 at his Bombay address. On 5.11.1993, the representative of the appellant took the delivery of the consignment from respondent No. 2 and thereafter handed over the same to the appellant. On opening the packages it was noticed by the appellant that two packages i.e. one gunny bag containing two suit cases and one gunny bag, containing household goods, were changed and were different from those handed over to the respondent No. 1. The matter was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 by the appellant who referred the matter to their Delhi office vide Memo dated 10.11.1993. Since the respondents failed to restore the original packages to the complainant, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that a direction be given to the respondents to pay to him a sum of Rs. 88,815/- as compensation and damages.

3. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was contested by the respondents. The learned District Forum, vide order dated 10.11.1997, being impugned in the present proceedings, has held that there was no ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the respondents and has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

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

5. We have heard 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 10.11.1997. 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 24.11.1999. Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the abovesaid application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it is only stated that “there is no deliberate delay” on the part of the appellant in filing the present appeal. On going through the contents of the abovesaid application, it is apparent that the only reason assigned by the appellant for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal is “lack of technical and legal knowledge.”

6.