NCDRC Reiterates That Condonation Of Delay Is Not A Right, Each Day Should Be Explained
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Mr. C. Vishwanath as the presiding member and Mr. Subhash Chandra as a member recently observed that the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should be explained for every day of the delay. The bench observed this while dismissing a revision petition filed under Section 21 of...
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Mr. C. Vishwanath as the presiding member and Mr. Subhash Chandra as a member recently observed that the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should be explained for every day of the delay. The bench observed this while dismissing a revision petition filed under Section 21 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The state commission had observed that the petitioner has failed to show any cause for the delay and who has no bona fides, is not entitled for the discretionary indulgency of this Commission.
The complainant/ respondent submitted that they purchased 65.30 grams of gold for an amount of Rs.1,84,677/- from the opposite party and paid an advance of Rs.40,000/-. The opposite party agreed to make the said items within one and half months during which the complainant was supposed to pay the balance amount to the opposite party. It was further submitted that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,38,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.46,677/- as still unpaid. Complainant stated that the opposite party did not prepare the said ornaments even though the complainant is ready to pay the balance amount.
In this regard, the complainant approached the district forum, Srikakulam. The district forum allowed the complaint and directed the jeweller to deliver the said ornaments or repay the amount paid by the complainant and observed:
“In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to deliver the gold ornaments weight of 65.330 grams of 916 purity on receipt of balance amount of Rs.46,677/- or to repay the paid amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.07.2014 to till the date of repayment within one month to the complainant or else, the complainant is entitled to get the paid amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 01.07.2014 to till the date of repayment. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.40,000/- within one month, towards mental agony, pain and sufferings, with litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- in which Rs.1000/- is included as Advocate fee.”
Aggrieved by the order of the district commission the jeweller approached the state commission. However, the said appeal was filed with a delay of 177 days and the state commission observed that the petitioner therein has failed to show any cause for the delay and who has no bona fides, is not entitled for the discretionary indulgency of this Commission. The petition was therefore, dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the state commission, the petitioner (Soudharya Jewellers) preferred a revision petition before the national commission. The bench observed that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the state commission and the state commission had dismissed the appeal on the same ground. It was further noted that in view of the settled position of law the condonation of delay under The Limitation Act, 1963 needs to be satisfactorily explained for every day of delay and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The bench also referenced the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 to note the aforementioned.
The national commission also referenced to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24 and noted that It is also a settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence is also stated in the aforementioned case law. Additionally, the National commission also mentioned the supreme court decision in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. Okhla Industrial Development Authority and noted that special nature of the consumer protection act needs to be kept in mind while dealing with applications of condonation of delay.
The bench observed that The delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission has rightly not been condoned as sufficient and reasonable cause was not shown for the delay. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Case: SOUDHARYA JEWLLERS V. PAIDI JAGANADHA RAO
REVISION PETITION NO. 1429 OF 2016