IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Limitation - Where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation.
(2) Delay - In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.
(3) Inordinate Delay - No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever.

ORDER

The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 25.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Appeal Nos.414 to 426 of 2016, whereby the said Appeals have been dismissed by the State Commission on ground of limitation. The said appeals were filed after a delay of 296 days.

2. As common issues are involved in all the 13 cases, they are taken up together. However, RP No. 340 of 2017 is taken as lead case for presenting facts.

3. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 25.11.2016 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

(a) No reasonable opportunity of being heard was given by the State Commission.

(b) Complaint filed by the Respondent(s) was not entertainable by the District Forum and Complainant is not a consumer.

(c) Director of Petitioner No.2/Appellant no.2 is in judicial custody till date and, therefore, Petitioner No.1/Appellant No.1 was not in position to deposit the security amount for filing the Appeal but State Commission did not consider the above explanation of the Petitioners.

(d) The circumstances were not within the control of the Petitioners / Appellants and thus delay caused which was bonafide. Filing of appeal requires various permission at different levels and therefore, delay occurred.

4. As condonation of delay application filed by the Petitioners before the State Commission was not on record, on 01.09.2023, after hearing the parties and while reserving the judgment, the Petitioner(s) were instructed to file copy of condonation of delay application filed by them before the State Commission. However, till the date of pronouncement of this judgment, Petitioners have not filed copy of this application. Accordingly, the case is being decided based on available records.

5. The appellants (OPs) have preferred the appeals against the order dated 28.08.2015, passed by the District Forum and have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing appeals. The appeals were filed after a delay of 296 days.

6. The reasons for delay in filing appeals before the State Commission, as contained in the order of the State Commission are reproduced below:—

3. Shri Tularam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has argued that the impugned order has been passed by the District Forum on 28.08.2015 and the appellants (OPs) received the copy of the impugned order after three months from the date of the impugned order. The appellant No.1 (O.P. No.1) presumed that the appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) is liable for the act and the appellant No.1 (O.P.No.1) requested the appellant No.2 (O.P. No.2) for filing appeal against the impugned order. The appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) deposited the statutory amount on behalf of the appellants (OPs) before the District Forum on 16.12.2015. The appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) is a Private Limited Company and the appeal on its behalf is required to be filed by an authorised person. Due to delay occurred in following the above procedure, the entire documents in this regard have been provided to the counsel. The instant appeal is being filed before this Commission within three months from the date of appointment of the advocate for filing appeal. The Head Office of the appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) is situated at Vijaywada (Andhra Pradesh) and the concerned person, was required to come to Bilaspur (CG) for obtaining documents and information, therefore delay was caused. The appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2) is also liable for the compliance of the direction given in the impugned order to the appellant No.1 (O.P.No.1), therefore, the statutory amount for filing appeal i.e. Rs.25,000/- has been deposited by the appellant No.2 (O.P.No.2). The appellants (OPs) appointed advocate for filing instant appeal on 25.03