HARISH TANDON, J. - (1.) TIME and again, the Supreme Court in numerable judgments reminded that the Court's approach in dealing an application for condonation of delay should be liberal and the delay of longer period cannot be a ground for rejection thereof, if it is supported by sufficient cause. The sufficient cause is a paramount consideration as the delay of shorter period should not be condoned in absence thereof. The present case is one of such example where the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have rejected an application for condonation of delay because of the longer period of delay without looking into the sufficiency of the cause shown by the petitioner.
(2.) A complaint case no. 132 of 2010 was filed by the opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an award/compensation of Rs. 18,80370/ - against the petitioner. The complaint petition proceed on the basis that in pursuance of the advertisement published in a Hindi Daily Newspaper "Sanmarg" on 23rd November, 2008 for 19 days package tour to Alaska from Kolkata and back, organised by Club M Holidays which includes the Bhagwat Katha by Dr. Manoj Mohan Shastriji between the period from 18th May, 2009 to 5th June, 2009 in a Megha Cruise, the opposite party deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lacs with the Club M Holidays on 28.03.2009 and further paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ - and Rs. 1 lac in cash on 27.04.2009 and 11.05.2009 respectively. The complainant attended the American Consulate General, Kolkata on 28th April, 2009 for the purpose of visa for the said tour. Since the said package tour also includes the travel within the territory of Candavanion countries, the separate visa is also required for the said purposes. The petitioner was not informed as to the fate of the application for visa, on the other hand, he was compelled to pay a further of Rs. 2,50,000/ - and Rs. 1 lacs on 27.04.2009 and 11.05.2009 respectively. Subsequently on inquiry, it was detected that the Canadian visa has been rejected as it was averred in the said application that the same is applied for temporary residence. Although the package tour includes the tickets from Calcutta but at the time of handing over the tickets, a few hours before the journey, it was found that it is ex -debti. The petitioner further alleges that they have been put to mental harassment as the said tour operator did not provide the facilities as per the etinary and the opposite parties have been subjected to various other expanses. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the purpose of the tour was totally frustrated as it was intended for a religious purposes which was never conducted by the tour operator. The petitioner claimed compensation for such negligence and/or deficiency in providing the services. The said complaint was decided ex parte on 28th May, 2011 which was assailed by the petitioner before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No. 466 of 2011 along with an application for condonation of delay.
(3.) THE petitioner seeks for condonation of delay of 62 days in filing an appeal and explained the causes for such delay in the said application. The petitioner imputed the knowledge of the said order dated 28th May, 2011 from a letter dated 29.08.2011 issued by the learned Advocate of the complainant/opposite party. It is further stated in the said application that the petitioner contacted different advocates for the purpose of taking steps in the matter but did not get the favourable response until 18.09.2011 when Mr. C. S. Mukherjee agree to take up the case of the petitioner provided the necessary papers and certified copies of the orders are obtained. Because of the intervening holiday which commenced from 1st October, 2011 and the time taken for obtaining the certified copy, the appeal was filed after a delay of 62 days.;