The importance of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, and the court's adherence to the Act's provisions on delayed payment.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 20.11.2002 passed by District Forum), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/2208/1999-entitled Smt. Poonam Kumari v. The Director General of Department of Post of India & Anr.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the respondent Smt. Poonam Kumari had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that her mother Smt. Ram Rati had opened an MIS account with respondent No. 2 (Post Master, Main Post Office, Khurja) and had deposited a sum of Rs. 48,000/- in the above said account. It was stated that the respondent Smt. Poonam Kumari was nominated as a ‘nominee’ in respect of the above said account. It was stated that the mother of the respondent said Smt. Ram Rati expired on 26.1.1998 and on the basis of nomination, the respondent, after the death of her mother, became entitled to receive the above said amount. It was stated that the respondent vide her letters dated 17.3.1998 and 24.3.1998 informed the appellants about the demise of her mother and thereafter vide application dated 17.6.1998 submitted her claim to appellant No. 2, it was stated that appellant No. 2 informed the respondent regarding some stay order obtained from the Court of Civil Judge, Bulandshahar. It was stated that the stay order granted by Civil Judge, Bulandshahar was vacated and thereafter the respondent again requested appellant No. 2 vide letter dated 27.10.1998 to make the payment. The grievance of the respondent, in the complaint, filed by her before the District Forum in nutshell was that despite completing all the formalities, the payment which was legally due to her had been withheld for about two years and, therefore, the appellants were liable to pay interest for delayed period.

3. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellants it was stated that the claim of the respondent was sanctioned on 24.7.1999 and after completing all the formalities a cheque of Rs. 63,080/- was sent to Asstt. Post Officer, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi along with letter dated 5.6.2000 for delivering the same to the respondent against proper receipt which amount had already been withdrawn by the respondent.

4. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the payment in question had been delayed from 24.7.1999 i.e. the day of sanction to 5.6.2000 and has held that for the above delayed period, the appellants are liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has awarded interest to the respondent at the above rate for the period from 24.7.1999 to 5.6.2000 on the sum of Rs. 63,080/- together with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the appellant No. 2 to the respondent. No order against appellant No. 1 has been passed by the District Forum.

5. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal, has been preferred by the appellants under Section 15 of the Act.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, a person, aggrieved by an order, made by the District Forum, can prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. However, proviso to Section 15 of the Act provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above said period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the same within the above said period. The words ‘sufficient cause’ occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance.