Case Note & Summary
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dealt with two second appeals filed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices against two separate complainants. The appeals challenged the common order dated 31.01.2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, which had upheld the order dated 22.02.2024 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot. The District Forum had earlier allowed the consumer complaints in CC Nos. 413 and 414 of 2023. The second appeals were filed after a delay of 104 days, for which applications for condonation of delay were submitted. The Commission, after considering the reasons given in the applications, condoned the delay. Noticing that the facts and legal issues in both appeals were substantially similar, the Commission took up both matters together for disposal by a common order. The provided text does not contain the final decision on the merits of the appeals.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Appeal - Limitation - Second Appeals filed with 104 days delay - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Procedure Regulations, 2020 - The Commission considered the reasons stated in the interlocutory applications for condonation of delay and found them sufficient - Held, the delay was condoned. The Commission further observed that the facts and legal issues in both second appeals were substantially similar and therefore disposed of them by a common order (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 104 days in filing the second appeals should be condoned and whether the appeals can be heard together due to substantial similarity of facts and legal issues
Final Decision
The Commission condoned the delay of 104 days in filing the second appeals and took up both appeals together for disposal by a common order. The final decision on the merits of the appeals is not provided in the text.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Delay condonation
- similar appeals may be disposed of by common order
- consumer protection
Case Details
2026 LawText (NCDRC) (05) 1
Second Appeal No. 450 of 2025 and Second Appeal No. 452 of 2025
AVM J Rajendra AVSM VSM (Retd), Presiding Member
Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Head Post Office, Rajkot
Vijay Amrutlal Parmar and Jaynit Prashant Kumar Parmar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Remedy Sought
Remedy details not extracted
Filing Reason
Filing reason not mentioned
Previous Decisions
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot allowed the complaints in CC Nos. 413 and 414 of 2023 on 22.02.2024; State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat upheld the order in FA Nos. 556 and 557 of 2024 on 31.01.2025.
Issues
Whether the delay of 104 days in filing the second appeals should be condoned
Whether the two appeals can be disposed of by a common order due to similarity of facts and legal issues
Submissions/Arguments
Ratio Decidendi
For the reasons stated in the interlocutory applications for condonation of delay, the delay was condoned. As the facts and legal issues in both second appeals were substantially similar, they were disposed of by a common order.
Judgment Excerpts
Since the facts and legal issues involved in both Second Appeals are substantially similar, these are being disposed of by this common order.
As per the Registry’s report, these Second Appeals were filed with a delay of 104 days. However, for the reasons stated in I.A. Nos. 9007 and 9013 of 2025, the delay is condoned.
Procedural History
Complaints filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot as CC Nos. 413 and 414 of 2023. District Forum passed orders on 22.02.2024 allowing the complaints. Appeals filed before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat as FA Nos. 556 and 557 of 2024. State Commission dismissed the appeals on 31.01.2025, upholding the District Forum orders. Second Appeals No. 450 and 452 of 2025 filed before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a delay of 104 days. Interlocutory applications for condonation of delay were allowed, and the appeals were taken up together for common disposal.
