The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under the leadership of AVM J. Rajendra, ruled in a revision petition filed by the Tehsildar Taluk Office, which involved a 349-day delay. The Commission emphasized that even when a sufficient cause is shown, the decision to condone the delay ultimately rests within the Court’s discretion.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The records revealed a 349-day delay in filing the Revision Petition before the National Commission, with no application for condonation of delay submitted. Additionally, there were repeated failures by the Tehsildar office/petitioner to address procedural defects. The petitioner attributed the delay to the retirement and transfer of the concerned officers, leading to procedural setbacks. As per Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, the limitation period for filing a Revision Petition is ninety days from the date of receiving the certified order copy. In this case, the State Commission of Tamil Nadu had issued the order, but the Revision Petition was filed well after the limitation period had expired, resulting in a 349-day delay.
OBSERVATION BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION
The National Commission referenced the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., emphasizing that even when a sufficient cause is established, the decision to condone a delay is ultimately at the Court’s discretion, requiring a thorough examination of all relevant factors. Additionally, the standard for assessing delay is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. In RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, the Court held that it must evaluate whether the delay is adequately explained and if the petitioner demonstrated reasonable diligence. Similarly, in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, it was highlighted that allowing highly belated appeals or revisions in consumer matters could undermine the objective of swift adjudication. The concept of ‘sufficient cause’ was further clarified in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, stating that it demands a credible explanation for the delay, not just an attempt to excuse negligence. Based on these precedents, the Commission concluded that the petitioner failed to provide a sufficient cause for the 349-day delay in filing the Revision Petition. The reasons cited, such as the retirement and transfer of officers, were considered routine and insufficient. Consequently, the National Commission denied the petitioner’s request for condonation of the delay.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676