Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Through Video Conferencing
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation – Petitioner
versus
Prabhat Kumar Sharma – Respondent
Revision Petition No.926 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 30/11/2018 in Appeal No.203/2017 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 15.12.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Reasons for condonation of delay must be of such nature which were beyond the control of the petitioner.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Revision – Delay in filing of – Condonation – Scope – Submission of petitioner that delay of 568 days in filing revision petition occurred due to the strike in the department which led to delay in bringing the records – File prepared but could not be submitted in courts on account of closure of courts due to Covid-19 – Supreme Court suomoto has held that delay w.e.f. 15.3.2020 should be suspended – Since revision petition was filed on 18.9.2020, petitioner entitled for condonation of delay of 180 days – Thus taking out 180 days from 568 days the effective delay comes to 388 days – Reason that there was a strike in department leading to delay in seeking legal advice, and collection of documents and delay in getting documents translated are not of such nature which could not have been avoided if the petitioner had acted with due diligence and care – Reason for delay were not of such nature which were beyond the control of the petitioner – No ground found to condone the delay of 388 days in filing of revision petition – Petition barred by limitation.
Held: I have perused the application. The two reasons have been given for condonation of delay. The first reason is that the file was prepared but it could not be submitted in the courts on account of closure of the courts due to Covid-19 and the file was needed to be re-prepared and finally, it could be filed only on 18.09.2020. It is apparent that the lockdown due to Covid-19 was declared around 15.03.2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 has held that the delay w.e.f. 15.03.2020 should be suspended. Since the Revision Petition has been filed on 18.09.2020, the Petitioner is entitled for condonation of delay of six months, i.e. 180 days approximately, in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When I take out 180 days from 568 days, the delay comes to about 388 days. The Petitioner needs to explain the reasons for condonation of this delay of 388 days. The reasons seeking condonation of delay should be of such a nature which had prevented the Petitioner from filing the Revision Petition on time and which were beyond the control and that even after taking reasonable care and diligence, the Petition could not have been filed within the period of limitation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the courts can exercise its discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown.
It is also settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. If a person acts in lethargic manner and continues sitting over the file and takes long time for preparing the file or in getting translations done, or delay in collecting documents, such delay cannot be said to be sufficient and reasonable as are not the reasons which could not have been avoided. The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also warned this Commission to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,.”
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that these are Government matters and a lenient view be taken. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)” has clearly stated that the Government Departments are under special obligations to ensure that they perform their duty with diligence and commitment.
The only reason given in the application is that there was a strike in the department leading to delay in seeking legal advice and in collection of the documents. Further there was a delay in getting the documents translated, causing the delay in filing the present Revision Petition. These reasons are not of such nature which could not have been prevented and avoided, if the Petitioner had acted with due diligence and care. These reasons were not of such nature which were beyond the control of the Petitioner.
In view of the above, I found no ground to condone the delay of 388 days in filing of the Revision Petition and thus the application is dismissed. (Paras 4 to 10)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER (ORAL)
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short “the Act”) has been filed on 18.09.2020 by the Petitioner Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order dated 30.11.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.203 of 2017 filed by the Complainant wherein the Petitioner had participated. Since the present Revision Petition is delayed by 568 days, an IA No.6021 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay has been filed.
IA 6021 of 2020 (condonation of delay)
1. Arguments heard on this application. My findings on this IA are as under:
2. In paragraph 2 of the application, the Petitioner has submitted that the delay of 568 days had occurred due to the strike in the department which led to the delay in bringing the records to Delhi. Further, the Petitioner was unable to collect the documents from the Counsel who had ceased to be on the panel of the Petitioner. Thereafter, there was delay in getting the translation of the documents done as the translator had become an Advocate and hence, it was difficult to contact him. It is submitted that the file was prepared but by the time it was taken to the court, the courts were closed due to Covid-19. It is contended that the office of the counsel was sealed due to acute infection of Covid-19 in the area. It is also submitted that the file was to be remade. On the above contentions, it is submitted that the delay was unintentional, inadvertent and beyond the control of the Petitioner and therefore, the delay in filing of the Revision Petition be condoned.
3. Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued on aforementioned lines.
4. I have perused the application. The two reasons have been given for condonation of delay. The first reason is that the file was prepared but it could not be submitted in the courts on account of closure of the courts due to Covid-19 and the file was needed to be re-prepared and finally, it could be filed only on 18.09.2020. It is apparent that the lockdown due to Covid-19 was declared around 15.03.2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 has held that the delay w.e.f. 15.03.2020 should be suspended. Since the Revision Petition has been filed on 18.09.2020, the Petitioner is entitled for condonation of delay of six months, i.e. 180 days approximately, in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When I take out 180 days from 568 days, the delay comes to about 388 days. The Petitioner needs to explain the reasons for condonation of this delay of 388 days. The reasons seeking condonation of delay should be of such a nature which had prevented the Petitioner from filing the Revision Petition on time and which were beyond the control and that even after taking reasonable care and diligence, the Petition could not have been filed within the period of limitation.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the courts can exercise its discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown. The Apex Court has held as under:
“12. 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 t
