Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Godrej Projects Development Ltd., challenged an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, which dismissed its revision petition against the District Commission's order condoning delay in filing a consumer complaint. The respondents, R.K. Ramani and Jayanti Ramani, had booked a flat in the petitioner's project and paid part consideration of Rs.45,15,844/-. The petitioner terminated the allotment alleging default in payment. The respondents filed a complaint before the State Commission on 13 August 2018, along with an application for condonation of delay. On 16 April 2019, the State Commission returned the complaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, directing filing before the proper forum. The respondents then filed a fresh complaint before the District Commission under Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with an application for condonation of delay of 76 days, though the actual delay was 1192 days. The District Commission condoned the delay by order dated 6 August 2024, observing that the period spent before the State Commission should be excluded. The petitioner's revision before the State Commission was dismissed on 26 May 2025. The High Court, in the writ petition under Article 227, upheld the orders, holding that the period during which the complaint was pending before the State Commission was required to be excluded, and a liberal approach was warranted in the interest of justice. The court found no perversity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned orders.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Condonation of Delay - Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Exclusion of time spent before wrong forum - The complainants initially filed a complaint before the State Commission, which returned it for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. They then filed before the District Commission with a delay of 1192 days. The District Commission condoned the delay, and the State Commission in revision upheld it. The High Court held that the period during which the complaint was pending before the State Commission was required to be excluded, and a liberal approach was warranted in the interest of justice. (Paras 2-5) B) Consumer Law - Revision - Scope of Interference - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, would not interfere with an order condoning delay unless it is perverse or without jurisdiction. The State Commission's order dismissing the revision was found to be in consonance with the principles of condonation of delay. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Consumer Commission erred in dismissing the revision petition against the District Commission's order condoning delay in filing the consumer complaint, particularly when the complaint was initially filed before the wrong forum and the period spent therein was sought to be excluded.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the District Commission and the State Commission condoning the delay. The court held that the period during which the complaint was pending before the State Commission was required to be excluded, and a liberal approach was warranted in the interest of justice.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Consumer Protection Act
- 2019
- Section 34
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 14
- Exclusion of time spent before wrong forum
- Liberal approach in consumer matters
