National Consumer Commission Ordered to Condonation of Delay based on valid reasons or sufficient cause
Table of Contents
Revision Petition:
The document is a revision petition filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019, challenging orders from the State Commission Delhi related to a complaint from 2007.
Petitioner’s Argument:
The petitioner, Medical Superintendent of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, argues against the dismissal of their appeal due to a small delay in filing, which was not communicated via the forum’s portal.
State Commission’s Decision:
The State Commission dismissed the appeal at the admission stage due to a delay of 24 days from the order date or 3 days from the certified copy’s receipt.
National Commission’s Order:
The National Commission found the delay explanation reasonable, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the case back to the State Commission for adjudication on merits.
Final Order
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2951 OF 2023
(Against the Order dated 17/10/2023 in Appeal No. A/27/2023 of the State Commission Delhi)
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT
MATA CHANAN DEVI HOSPITAL C-1, JANAKPURI SOUTH WEST
DELHI Petitioner(s)
Versus
MRS KAUSHAL BHATNAGAR AND ORS. R2F-1/205-A, MAHAVIR ENCLAVE, PALAM, SOUTH WEST
DELHI
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RAM MANOHAR LOHIA HOSPITAL CENTRAL
DELHI
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL CENTRAL
DELHI
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
8TH FLOOR, KANCHAN CHUNGA BUILDING, 18, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE
CENTRAL
DELHI Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. S.C. BHUTTAN, ADVOCATE
Dated : 08 January 2024
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 24.05.2023 in Appeal No. 27 of 2023 and Order dated 17.10.2023 in RA No. 23 of 2023 of the State Commission Delhi arising out of Order dated 30.11.2022 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 02 of 2007.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including inter alia the Order by the District Commission on 30.11.2022, the impugned Orders dated 24.05.2023 and 17.10.2023
passed by the State Commission and the memo. of the petition.
It appears that the appeal filed by the appellant / petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed by the State Commission at the admission stage without issuing notice to the other side on the point of limitation as the State Commission did not deem it fit to condone the small delay involved.
Ordinarily this Bench could have issued notice to the respondent and would have proceeded with the matter thereafter. But such a course might have taken a long time as it was not likely that the matter could have been taken up at an early date in the wake of heavy pendency of cases. Such a course could have eventually proved detrimental to the cause of the consumer justice as the matter would have then dragged for an indefinite period of time. As the matter does not involve any complicated questions of law or facts and relates only to the first principles of the natural justice, it would not serve much purpose to procrastinate the hearing waiting for the appearance of the respondent therefore, the Bench finds it expedient to decide the matter on the basis of record.
Submission is that the Order was passed on 30.11.2022 by the District Commission and the appeal was filed in the State Commission against the same on 23.01.2023 but as there was a small delay of three days involved in filing the petition the appeal was dismissed on the point of limitation at the state of admission itself. Submission is that petitioner has a good case on merits and as is obvious the merits of the case remained unadjudicated for the reason that the appeal was dismissed on the point of limitation itself. That the pronouncement of the Order was not in the knowledge of the petitioner as the same was not put on the portal of the forum. The knowledge about the Order could come only when the AR of the hospital went to enquire about the result of the case and then he came to know that the judgement has already been pronounced. Immediately thereafter certified copy was applied and the same was obtained on 21.12.2022. Submission is that, therefore, the period of limitation has to be counted when the petitioner could procure the copy of the Order. No previous communication of the Order was made at the instance of the District Commission and there was no communication about the Order before 21.12.2022. Submission is that in that view of the matter the delay in filing the appeal comes to be only of three days as the period of limitation under the old Act was only 30 days. Submission is that if the new Act applied the period of limitation to file the appeal would be 45 days and in that situation there will be no delay but as the matter pertains to the old Act the delay in filing the appeal shall be deemed to be there however, small it might be. Submission is that as the knowledge about the pronouncement of the Order could be belatedly acquired it took some time to collect necessary papers, engaging the counsel and do the needful and the filing got delayed by a few days. Submission is that if opportunity of hearing would not be granted and the delay would not be condoned the prejudice caused to the cause of the appellant shall be irreparable and it would be left remediless. It has been contended that the learned State Commission has taken a rather strict view of the matter and has dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation even though the delay involved was quite short and there was adequate explanation for the same.
Record has been perused in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel. It may be relevant to quote the observations made by learned State Commission while discussing the aspect of delay in filing the appeal which reads as follows:-
…
9. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an impugned order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of such order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.11.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 23.01.2023 with a delay of 24 days.
…
15. Even if we consider that the appellant has received the certified copy of the impugned order on 21.12.2022, in this circumstance also, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 20.01.2023. Thus, still the delay of three days has occurred in filing the appeal.
…
After discussing the matter further the State Commission did not deem it appropriate to condone the delay which being counted from the date of Order would be of 24 days and if counted from the date of the communication of the certified copy of the Order it would come out to to be of only three days.
Without commenting anything upon the merits of the case lest it may cause prejudice to either side the Bench is of the opinion that the explanation furnished on the part of the petitioner with regard to the delayed filing of the appeal in the State Commission was such which deserved condonation of delay as it furnished valid reasons or sufficient cause to explain the same. The delay involved does not appear to be either deliberate or intentional nor so big which cannot be condoned specially when we keep in perspective the explanation offered with regard to the same.
In view of the above, it is deemed appropriate that the appeal may be adjudicated on merits and the delay involved should be deemed as condoned. The impugned Order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the State Commission with the request to deem the delay having been condoned and proceed with the matter on its merits after affording opportunity to both the sides in accordance with law.
Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 23.02.2024.
The principal onus of informing the respondents of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. It shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.
However, if for whatever reason, the respondents do not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring their presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondents.
In case the respondents still feel to have objections to the instant Order, they may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that they will raise their objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondents may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise their objections.
If the respondents move appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondents do not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
.