Case Note & Summary
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a second appeal filed by the Sub Post Master, Gandhinagar, against Meenaben Bhawanji Kariya, due to a 169-day delay in filing. The appeal challenged an order dated 2nd December 2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay, attributing the delay to procedural requirements for obtaining approvals from the Ministry of Legal Affairs and other departments. The petitioner argued that the State should be given latitude as per precedents like State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy. The Commission, however, found that the reasons advanced were not rational, reasonable, or realistic, and that the delay was caused by a routine and casual approach. Relying on State Bank of India v. B S Agriculture Industries (I), the Commission emphasized that Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act is peremptory and requires the forum to ensure complaints are filed within limitation. The Commission held that the petitioner failed to explain each day's delay and dismissed the application for condonation, consequently dismissing the second appeal as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 24A - The petitioner, a government department, sought condonation of 169 days delay citing bureaucratic approvals. The Commission held that the explanation was not rational, reasonable, or realistic, and the delay was caused by routine and casual handling. The law requires each day's delay to be explained, and the State is not automatically entitled to leniency. (Paras 2-6) B) Consumer Law - Limitation - Peremptory Nature - Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - The Commission reiterated that Section 24A is a legislative command requiring the consumer forum to examine whether the complaint/appeal is filed within limitation. Delay can be condoned only if sufficient cause is shown and reasons recorded in writing. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 169 days in filing the second appeal should be condoned on the ground of procedural delays in obtaining departmental approvals.
Final Decision
The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the second appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause for each day of delay
- bureaucratic delays not sufficient cause
- State cannot claim automatic leniency
- limitation period peremptory under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act
