Failure To Properly Explain The Delay In Filing: NCDRC Dismisses The Revision Petition

The New Delhi bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice Deepa Sharma as the Presiding Member, emphasized that condonation of delay is not an inherent right but necessitates the person seeking it to present a valid explanation for each day of delay and establish a reasonable ground for not approaching the court within the prescribed limitation period. The reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the court.

Brief Facts:

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) considered a revision petition seeking the condonation of a 117-day delay for filing the appeal against the order issued by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”). The appeal was in relation to Complaint No. 389 of 2018, where the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East District, Delhi (“District Commission”) had ruled in favor of the respondent.

The appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was caused by various factors. Firstly, there was a delay in obtaining the certified copy of the case. Secondly, the petitioner couldn't locate the case file due to the closure and relocation of the branch office during the Covid pandemic. An application was filed on 22.08.2022 to get certified copies from the District Commission, but they couldn't provide them due to staff shortages. Moreover, there was a delay when the Fixed Deposit Receipts (“FDRs”) were initially issued with errors and not accepted by the registry. The corrected FDRs were received on 10.10.2022 and the appeal was immediately filed on 11.10.2022. The petitioner asserted that these circumstances justify the delay in filing the appeal within the limitation period.

Observations by the Commission:

The NCDRC observed that the period of limitation started on 17.05.2022 when the appellant received the copy of the impugned judgment. Considering this, the appellant should have filed the appeal within 30 days from the date of order. However, the reasons for the appellant’s inability to file the appeal within the expected time, were rather internal such as inability to trace the file and preparing FDRs in wrong name, among other things. To understand the scope of the term ‘sufficient cause’ in matters of delay, the NCDRC placed reliance on the case of Basawaraj and ors. v The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746, wherein the Supreme Court held that the sufficient cause does not include the negligent manner in which the Applicant had acted or/and there was a want of bona fide, on his/her part. If a party does not act diligently or remains inactive, it cannot qualify as sufficient ground allowing the court to exercise discretion in favor of such a party.

The NCDRC also held that condonation of delay is not an automatic right but requires the person requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of delay and demonstrate a reasonable ground for not approaching the court within the limitation period. Reliance was placed on the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, wherein it was held that the decision to grant condonation of delay is discretionary, even if sufficient cause is proven. Moreover, the court considers all relevant facts, including diligence and good faith, but the scope of this enquiry while exercising the discretionary power is limited to only such relevant facts. Lastly, the bench while referring to the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the court. The special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should be considered when dealing with applications for condonation of delay, as the Act prescribes a specific limitation period for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters, aiming for prompt resolution of consumer disputes.

After considering all the facts and circumstances available, the NCDRC held that the appellant failed to provide any valid reasons that were beyond his control and hindered the timely filing of the Appeal. The reasons mentioned in the Application indicated negligence on the part of the appellant, such as the inability to locate the file and the preparation of the FDRs in the wrong name, the bench noted. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed without any order for costs.

Case: Orchid Travel and Tours vs Kamini Chauchan & 2 Ors

Case No.: Revision Petition No. 1376 Of 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shankar Divate

Counsel for the Respondent: N.A.

Click Here To Read/Download Order