“Sufficient Cause” For Condoning Delay Requires Party To Have Acted Diligently And Without Negligence: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that delay should not be excused without sufficient cause, and the fact that other parties have been granted relief does not justify excusing delay in similar cases. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant filed an appeal against a District Forum's order in the State Commission of...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that delay should not be excused without sufficient cause, and the fact that other parties have been granted relief does not justify excusing delay in similar cases.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant filed an appeal against a District Forum's order in the State Commission of Punjab seeking condonation for a delay of 3074 days in filing the application. The appeal was dismissed due to the complainant not having sufficient reason to demonstrate the cause of the delay. The complainant then filed a revision petition before the National Commission regarding the same.
Observations by the Commission
The Commission observed that to condone such a delay in filing, the complainant needed to demonstrate sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition after the stipulated period. The term “sufficient cause” was explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, wherein it was held that “sufficient cause” means a cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence, implying that the party did not act negligently and that the circumstances must justify the delay. The commission cited the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane vs. Land Acquisition Officer which underscored that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, even if it harshly affects a particular party, as the Court has no power to extend the period on equitable grounds. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs. & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) held that delay should not be condoned without sufficient cause, and merely because other parties have been granted relief does not justify condoning delay in similar cases. The commission emphasized that based on these orders, it is clear that “sufficient cause” requires the party to have acted diligently and without negligence. In the present case, the complainant filed the appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 3074 days. The impugned order of the District Forum was passed, and the prescribed period for filing the appeal was 30 days. However, the first appeal was filed much later, with a delay of 3074 days. The complainant failed to provide specific dates or necessary details to justify the delay, which was essential for consideration of the condonation of delay.
The Commission did not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismissed it.
Case Title: Sher Singh Vs. Manager, The New India Assurance Company
Case Number: R.P. No. 1057/2022