ORDER (AFTER LUNCH)

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Opposite Party being aggrieved by impugned order dated 10.4.2013 passed by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short, ‘State Commission’) has filed present revision petition. Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 20 days has been filed.

2. Respondent/Complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner alleging deficiency on its part.

3. The consumer complaint was contested by the petitioner.

4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shivpuri, M.P. (for short, ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide order dated 31.8.2009.

5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission. Since, there was delay in filing appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 35 days was filed.

6. The State Commission vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

8. The impugned order passed by the State Commission read as under;

“The appeal is filed against the order dated 31.8.2009 of the District Forum, Shivpuri in case no.58/2009 which is time barred by one month and five days. Learned counsel submits that time was consumed because from Shivpuri the matter has been sent to Head Office for obtaining sanction. Even assuming that the sanction of the Head Office was required it has not been explained as to how the Head Office took one month and five days to issue sanction. We, therefore, do not find the explanation plausible and sufficient cause has not been shown for condonation of delay. The appeal is dismissed as time barred.”

9. I have perused the impugned order as well as the ground on which condonation of delay was sought before the State Commission.

10. In the application for condonation of delay before the State Commission, it was averred that;

“2. That the filing of above appeal 35 days has been delayed, which has been done due to departmental proceeding. After amendment in the order by the appellant, file of above case has been send to the Mumbai for granting sanction. Thereafter file of above case has been send from Shivpuri to Bhopal. As a result of which 35 days has been delay for the filing above appeal. 35 days delay has been liable to be condoned.”

11. As per above grounds, no sufficient cause whatsoever has been shown nor the petitioner has stated as to on which date the file was sent to Mumbai and when it was sent to Shivpuri to Bhopal and which company’s official dealt with the case file. The application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission is was absolutely vague. It does not give plausible explanation for delay.

12. It is well settled that “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

13. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“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 S.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.”

14. Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that;

“There is no denying the fact that the expressi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document