Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit & Anr. (appellants) against an order dated 13.08.2024 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission had allowed the appeal of Respondent No.2 and directed the bank to pay the insurance claim to Respondent No.1/complainant. The bank filed the second appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a delay of 191 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the bank stated that the certified copy of the impugned order was received by the local counsel on 27.08.2024, after which the matter was sent to the head office for deliberation and approval. Further time was taken to identify suitable legal counsel, and it was also mentioned that the District Collector, who is the head of the appellant organization, was busy with elections. The Commission examined these grounds and found that they do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Commission noted that the reasons cited were internal administrative delays and routine procedural hurdles, which are not beyond the control of the appellant and do not justify such a long delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the second appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 67 - The appellant bank filed a second appeal with a delay of 191 days. The grounds for delay included internal administrative procedures, time taken to identify counsel, and the District Collector's engagement in election duties. The Commission held that such grounds do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, as they are not beyond the control of the appellant and reflect lack of diligence. The application for condonation was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay of 191 days in filing the second appeal.
Final Decision
The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation
- Consumer Protection Act
- 2019
