Burden Of Proof Lies With Applicant To Show Sufficient Cause For Delay: NCDRC holds Ethiopian Arlines Liable For Deficiency

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra, held that demonstrating sufficient cause for delay is essential for exercising discretionary jurisdiction. Without sufficient cause, the application must be dismissed, placing the burden of proof on the applicant to justify the delay. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant booked a Business Class ticket with the Ethiopian Airlines for travel from Nigeria to India.. However, the airlines changed the departure time and added a stop, notifying the complainant shortly before the travel date. This change forced him to shift to new travel arrangements, resulting in delays to his subsequent plans and financial losses. Later, upon arrival, he discovered that one of his checked bags, containing important documents and valuable items, was missing. The loss of the bag negatively impacted his business meetings, as essential documents were inside. The airlines offered compensation of USD 20 per kilogram for the lost baggage, but the complainant demanded Rs. 20 lakhs for the loss of business opportunity and an additional Rs. 1.5 lakhs for the value of the belongings in the missing bag. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission of Delhi, which allowed the complaint. It directed the airlines to to pay Rs.5.5 lakhs in all to the complainant. Aggrieved by the State Commission's order, the airline appealed before the National Commission. Contentions of the Airline The airline contended that the complainant had purchased the ticket for commercial purposes, which excluded him from the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It was argued that the State Commission improperly awarded damages for the loss of business opportunity due to the missing bag. It was further noted the complainant's declaration of the bag's contents valued at Rs. 1,50,000 without supporting evidence, and incorrectly awarded Rs. 5,50,000. The airline's counsel also argued that there had been no negligence on their part. However, as per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal application. Observations by the National Commission The National Commission observed that the application for condonation of delay was submitted without detailing the dates to justify the requested delay. The counsel for the airline was unable to provide a plausible explanation based on extenuating circumstances for the delay, which was not satisfactorily explained and lasted 52 days. In the case of State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture Industries, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that complaints must be filed within two years from the date of the cause of action, though the consumer forum may condone delays if sufficient cause is shown. The court clarified that it is the consumer forum's duty to ensure that complaints are filed within this limitation period. The Supreme Court also indicated that a party that has not acted diligently is not entitled to condonation of delay, as established in R.B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari. Here, the court noted that it must examine whether the delay in filing was properly explained. The commission highlighted that the condonation of delay is not a right; the applicant must present sufficient reasons for failing to approach the commission within the stipulated period. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, it was held that proving sufficient cause is a prerequisite for exercising discretionary jurisdiction. If sufficient cause is not demonstrated, the application must be dismissed. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to show sufficient cause for the delay, as defined in Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer. The term “sufficient cause” implies that the party acted neither negligently nor without bona fides. Courts must examine whether the mistake was genuine or a cover for ulterior motives. The commission reiterated that while the law of limitation might appear harsh, it must be applied strictly. Courts cannot extend limitation periods based on equitable grounds, as emphasized by the legal maxim “dura lex sed lex,” meaning “the law is hard, but it is the law.” In Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, the Supreme Court advised that special attention should be given to the expedited nature of consumer protection matters when considering applications for condonation of delay. The airline was required to explain each day of the delay but failed to do so. They did not clarify when legal advice was sought or when the appeal was prepared and sent. This lack of explanation indicated that their reasons for the delay were weak and unjustifiable. Ultimately, the commission found that the request for condonation of delay appeared to be an attempt to prolong the implementation of the State Commission's order, as no substantial...

Burden Of Proof Lies With Applicant To Show Sufficient Cause For Delay: NCDRC holds Ethiopian Arlines Liable For Deficiency

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Burden Of Proof Lies With Applicant To Show Sufficient Cause For Delay: NCDRC holds Ethiopian Arlines Liable For Deficiency

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers