ORDER

Along with present revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed.

However, in the entire application no period of delay has been mentioned.

Be that as it may, arguments on application for condonation of delay heard.

Order after lunch.

ORDER (After Lunch)

Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 has filed the present revision petition against order dated 29.04.2014, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short, ‘State Commission’). Along with this petition, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, in which no period of delay has been mentioned.

2. Respondent No.1/Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint against the Petitioner besides others, being manufacturer of the defective Colour Doppler Ultra Sound Scanner, which was purchased from Respondent No.3/Opposite Party no.3.

Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on their part, respondent no.1 filed the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalgaon (for short, ‘District Forum’).

3. Petitioner contested the consumer complaint.

4. The District Forum vide order dated 30.04.2005, partly allowed the complaint. It directed the petitioner and respondent no.2 and 3 to pay an amount of 3,00,000/-

towards professional loss to respondent no.1 with 2,000/- as costs.

5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same vide its impugned order.

6. Hence, this revision petition.

7. The main grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought read as under:-

“2. The applicant most respectfully submits that on 12.06.2014 they received the impugned order dt.29.04.2014 passed in F.A. 973/2005 from the Hon’ble Aurangabad Circuit Bench of Mumbai State Commission, informing that the appeal is dismissed. The matter was notified for judgment on 29.04.2014 but actually the judgment was delivered on 12-06-2014 and the copy of the judgment was received on 12-06-2014. And therefore, only on 12-06-2014, the applicant came to know regarding the impugned order dt. 29-04-2014.

3. The applicant further submits that immediately copies of relevant papers and relevant information was collected from the Hon’ble Aurangabad circuit bench of State Commission Mumbai and hence there is a delay of _____ days in filing the revision application. The applicant therefore prays that there is a reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.”

8. Admittedly, copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner on

12.06.2014, whereas revision was filed before this Commission only on 13.10.2014. Petitioner has not mentioned any reason in the entire application, as to why it took four months’ time to file the revision petition. There is no whisper with regard to the delay in the condonation application at all.

9. It is well settled that sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay in each case, is a question of fact.

10. Delhi High Court in New Bank of India Vs. M/s Marvels (India), 93 (2001) DLT

558, has held;

“No doubt the words “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. However, when it is found that the applicants were most negligent in defending the case and their non-action and want of bonafide are clearly imputable, the Court would not help such a party. After all “sufficient cause” is an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guide-lines can be given and Court has to decide on the facts of each case as to whether the defendant who has suffered ex-parte decree has been able to satisfactorily show sufficient cause for non-appearance and in examining this aspect cumulative effect of all the relevant factors is to be seen.”

11. 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.