IMPORTANT POINT
Condonation of delay is not a matter of right & applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons which prevented them to come to Court/Commission within the stipulated period of limitation.

ORDER (ORAL)

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA 9807 of 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 211 days.

3. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that majority of the time was consumed by the Petitioner in procuring the trial records of the present case since it pertains to the year 2015. The Petitioner came to know the fact of suppression of material facts from Investigation Agencies hired by them. It took considerable time in procuring the English translation of the impugned order. It is prayed that the delay be condoned.

4. We have perused the records carefully.

5. The reasons advanced by the Petitioner to justify the delay caused have been considered. The Petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of the Revision Petition occurred since considerable time was consumed in procuring the trial records, translation of English documents and late knowledge of the suppression of material facts.

6. The law of limitation requires delay for each day of delay to be explained after expiry of the period of limitation. It is necessary that this explanation is rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable. A perusal of the application for the condonation of delay establishes beyond doubt that the delay was caused because the Petitioner dealt with the case in a rather routine and casual manner.

7. In State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121 decided on March 20, 2009, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:

“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24 A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder.

12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section24 A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” [Emphasis added]

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the settled legal proposition of law of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party. The Petitioner has not been able to provide adequate and sufficient reasons which prevented him to approach this Commission within the limitation.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that party who has not acted diligently or remained inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) has also described the test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not and held as under:—

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Li