Proving Sufficient Cause Does Not Automatically Entitle Condonation Of Delay: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, in a revision petition filed by the Tehsildar Taluk Office with a delay of 349 days, held that even if a sufficient cause is presented, the decision to grant a condonation for the delay is still at the Court's discretion.
Brief Facts of the Case
The record indicated a delay of 349 days in filing the Revision Petition before the National Commission , with no application for condonation of delay submitted. There had also been repeated failures to address defects on the part of the Tehsildar office/petitioner. The petitioner attributed the delay to the retirement and transfer of the concerned officers, which caused procedural delays. Furthermore, according to Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, the limitation period for filing a Revision Petition was ninety days from the date of receipt of the certified order copy. In the present case, the State Commission of Tamil Nadu had passed the order and the Revision Petition was filed after the limitation period had lapsed, resulting in a 349-day delay.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that in Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., it was emphasized that even with a sufficient cause, the decision to condone the delay remains at the Court's discretion, involving an examination of all relevant facts. Furthermore, the test for delay is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. In RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, it was held that the Court must assess if the delay is properly explained and if the petitioner has demonstrated reasonable diligence. Similarly, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority highlighted that delays in consumer matters could undermine the goal of swift adjudication if highly belated appeals or revisions are entertained. Additionally, the term “sufficient cause” was further explained in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, emphasizing that it requires an adequate explanation for the delay and not merely an attempt to cover up negligence. Based on the above precedents, it was concluded that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for the 349-day delay in filing the Revision Petition. The reasons given, retirement and transfers of officers were deemed routine and insufficient. Consequently, the National Commission denied the request for condonation of delay by the petitioner.
Case Title: Tahsildar Taluk Office Vs. M. Selvam
Case Number: R.P. No. 2790/2023