Commissions Cannot Condone Delay If Not Provided With Satisfactory Explanation: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complaint is about the request for condonation of a 10-day delay in filing an appeal, while the Registry noted a delay of 39 days. The complainant argued that the delay was due to the impugned order not being uploaded on the official website, and they only became aware of the order upon receiving the certified copy. They explained that the complete file from the local counsel was received and handed over to the advocate for filing the appeal, resulting in the delay. The state commission observed that the explanation provided by the complainant lacked evidence and did not satisfactorily justify the delay. The State Commission had issued the order after proceedings where the complainant was duly represented. The claim that the orders were not upheld was not accepted, as the complainant was represented by their counsel throughout. The commission concluded that the delay seemed intended to postpone the order's implementation and found the provided cause insufficient. The complainant has filed a first appeal before the National Commission against the State Commission's order.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that the complainant did not provide sufficient reasons to justify the delay in filing the appeal. The commission further observed that the Supreme Court has established that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, even if it affects a party harshly. The Commission highlighted that the complainant failed to act diligently or provide adequate reasons for not approaching the Commission within the prescribed time and delay appeared to be an attempt to delay the implementation of the State Commission's order. The commission cited the Supreme Court judgment in R.B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, which emphasized that each case must be examined to determine if the delay is properly explained and that a party must act with reasonable diligence. The court held that showing a sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condoning the delay, but even then, it is subject to the court's discretion based on relevant facts.

The commission further emphasized that in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, the Supreme Court defined 'sufficient cause' as a reason for which the party could not be blamed for their absence and must act without negligence or lack of bona fides. The court must ensure that the explanation for the delay is satisfactory and not an attempt to cover an ulterior purpose. The commission concluded that the purpose of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act is to ensure that consumer disputes are resolved quickly and not prolonged through litigation. The justification for the condonation of delay in this case was insufficient and seemed to be an attempt to delay the State Commission's order.

Hence, the commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the State Commission's order.

Case Title: Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Abhinav Sharma

Case Number: A. E. . No. 8/2024