FA/264/2022 DOD:03.07.

2023
RAJ KUMAR VS. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION

Date of Institution:20.12.2022
Date of hearing :21.04.2023
Date of Decision :03.07.2023

FIRST APPEAL NO. 264/2022

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. RAJ KUMAR

(BEHALF OF MR. ASHOK KUMAR & MR. KULDEEP KUMAR)
C-120C,K.NO.282
NEW ASHOK NAGAR,
DELHI-110096

…APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.
SHAKTI KIRAN BUILDING KARKARDOOMA,
SHAHDARA DELHI-110032
...NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Appellant in person.

PER: HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed on 20.12.2022 challenging the

impugned order dated 19.10.2022 vide which Complaint Case
No.263/2022 was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission—IX (East District), GNCT of Delhi.
Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.125/2023
seeking condonation of delay of 01 day in filing the appeal, filed
DISMISSED Page 1 of 6
FA/264/2022 DOD:03.07.2023
RAJ KUMAR VS. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.

on 16.01.2023 vide diary No.526. Affidavit of the appellant has

been filed alongwith this application.
3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved without any provision of law.
However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.
263/2022.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed which reads as
under:-
“………….
I received the order from the District Consumer Forum on
the date of November 3, 2022. To appeal within 45 days
to the State Consumer Forum, the 45th day was on
Sunday. When I came on Monday (5-12-2022) to submit
the file, they asked me for the copy of the file that was
submitted with the District Consumer Forum and for that
reason it got delayed by one day. Also I prepared the file
in Hindi language so they asked me to prepare it in
English language and 1 prepared it in English and for this
reason too the file got delayed by one day.
…………….”

6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section

41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as
under:-
“Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District
Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the
State Commission on the grounds of facts or law
within a period of forty-five days from the date of the
order in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an
appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days
if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing
it within that period:
[Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is
required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the
District Commission, unless the appellant has deposited
DISMISSED Page 2 of 6
FA/264/2022 DOD:03.07.2023
RAJ KUMAR VS. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.

fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be

prescribed”
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the
appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of
forty five days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of
record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was
pronounced on 19.10.2022 and the present appeal was filed on
20.12.2022 i.e. after a delay of 17 days.
8. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this
Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the
appeal after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has
been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The
relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as
under:-
“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant
could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of
the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough",
inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose
intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no
more than that which provides a platitude, which when
the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose
intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a
case, duly examined from the view point of a
reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context,
"sufficient cause" means that the party should not have
acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of
bona fide on its part in view of the facts and
circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the
party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive".
However, the facts and circumstances of each case
must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court
concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that
whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be
exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the
Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause"
from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory

DISMISSED Page 3 of 6
FA/264/2022 DOD:03.07.2023
RAJ KUMAR VS. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.

explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the

application for condonation of delay. The court has to
examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was
merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”
9. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs.
United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in
IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as
under:-
“12. ………we are not satisfied with the cause shown to
justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has
not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent
judgment of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held
that while deciding the application filed for
condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind
that special period of limitation has been
prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer
matters and the object of expeditious adjudication
of the consumer disputes, will get defeated if the
appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are
entertained.”
10. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc.
Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
Nos.2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -
“5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by
the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned
trial Court that delay has not been properly
explained and even there are no merits in the
application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the
matter should rest there and the condonation of
delay application was required to be dismissed. The
approach adopted by the learned trial Court that,
even after finding that, in absence of any material
evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been
explained and that there are no merits in the
application, still to condone the delay would be
giving a premium to a person who fails to explain
DISMISSED Page 4 of 6
FA/264/2022 DOD:03.07.2023
RAJ KUMAR VS. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.

the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At

this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of
PopatBahiruGoverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer,
reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred
to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the
law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but
it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period
of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision
may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party
but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full
effect to the same.
11. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the
Hon’ble National Commission, it is clear that ‘sufficient cause’
means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner
or there was a want of bona fide on its part and the applicant
must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient
cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory
explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the
application for condonation of delay.
12. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the
impugned order was passed on 19.10.2022 and the period of
limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on
03.12.2022. However, the appellant has failed to file the present
appeal within the stipulated period and the reason for delay
stated in the application are that certified copy of impugned order
was received by the Appellant on 03.11.2022 and thereafter, when
the Appellant went at the registry of this Commission, he was told
to file the copy of the case file which caused delay in filing the
appeal.
13. A perusal of the copy of impugned order filed by the Appellant
reveals that the impugned order was received by the Appellant on
03.11.2022. However, if we calculate the period of limitation from

DISMISSED Page 5 of 6
FA/264/2022 DOD:03.07.2023
RAJ KUMAR VS. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.

the date of receipt of the impugned order to the appellant on

03.11.2022, there is delay of 2 days in filing the appeal which has
to be explained by the Appellant.
14. Moreover, appellant has failed to explain the cogent reason for the
delay in filing the appeal and has failed to explain the day-to-day
delay caused after the pronouncement of the impugned order.
15. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra
and the facts of the case, the applicant/appellant has failed to
show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present
appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant seeking
condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the
same is dismissed on the above grounds.
16. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory
period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case,
there shall be no order as to cost.
17. File be consigned to record room.

JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

(PRESIDENT)

PINKI
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

J.P. AGRAWAL
MEMBER (GENERAL)

Pronounced on 03.07.2023

DISMISSED Page 6 of 6