Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Nagar Nigam Kota —Petitioner
versus
Mohammad Usman —Respondent
Revision Petition No.664 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 27/02/2013 in Appeal No.109/2011 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 4.1.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the care showing sufficient cause which prevented them to come to the commission.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 31(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 58]—Revision—Delay of 2621 days in filing of—Condonation of—Condanotion of delay of 2621—Condonation of delay is not a matter of right—Burden is on the applicant to show that there was sufficient cause for delay—Condonation of delay would depend on the background of each and every case and routine explanation would not be enough—No sufficient ground found to condone the inordinate delay of 2621 days in filing the revision petition—Condonation of delay application rejected—Petition barred by limitation. (Paras 9 to 14)
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party against the order dated 27.02.2013 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Kota (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.109/2011, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA/7358/2020, an application for condonation of delay of has also been filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, does not mention the delay in filing this Revision Petition. According to the Registry, there is a delay of 2621 days.

3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on IA/7358/2020, application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that substantial delay in filing the Revision Petition occurred due to missing of the file and this fact came to their knowledge on 06.07.2016. After more than one year, 28.08.2017 legal advice was taken from Shri Sanjeev Vijay, Advocate on filing of the Revision Petition. He advised that the matter being time barred, there was no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings before the NCDRC. On 05.01.2018 Legal Adviser again advised not to file Appeal before the NCDRC, as it was likely to be dismissed with heavy costs, being barred by limitation. However, it was decided to file Appeal before the NCDRC. On 05.06.2020 approval was obtained for filing the Revision Petitioner and after necessary formalities, the Revision Petition was filed on 31.07.2020. It was further submitted that the Respondent/Complainant played fraud on the Court and supressed material facts in drafting the Complaint and obtained orders in his favour. In support of his arguments, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5097- 5059 of 2004.

5. Impugned order was passed by the State Commission on 27.02.2013. From 27.02.2013 till 05.07.2016, for delay of more than 3 years, there is no explanation, except that the case file was missing. Moreover, from 06.07.2016 till the filing of the Revision Petition i.e. 31.08.2020, Petitioner took more than four years in filing the Revision Petition and the delay has been explained in terms of the process adopted by the Petitioner in filing the Revision Petition. Except administrative procedures and delay, no other reasonable explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay in filing the Revision Petition. At every stage their Counsels had pointed out that the case was badly barred by limitation.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also pleaded that the Complainant/Respondent played fraud on the Court and obtained the order in his favour to get wrongful gain and relied on Hon’ble Supreme Court order in A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5097-5059 of 2004. Facts in the present are distinguishable. In the Application for condonation of delay, the Petitioner has not mentioned as to what fraud had been played by the Respondent/Complainant. In the District Forum it was stated that the file was missing and there was no deficiency in service by not registering the land strip in favour of the Complainant. The size of the land was more than what had been mentioned by the Complainant/Respondent, it being only an issue of fact and not fraud. As sufficient explanation for delay could not be adduced, the Petitioner took the shelter of alleged ‘fraud’ merely to escape limitation.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in re: Cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020 on 23.03.2020 held that to obviate the difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, ordered that a period of limitation in all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTCondonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the care showing sufficient cause which prevented them to come to the commission.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the care showing sufficient cause which prevented them to come to the commission.