Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by BCIL ZED RIA Properties Pvt Ltd., challenging the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 30.01.2024. The NCDRC had dismissed the petitioner’s first appeal against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu’s order in Complaint No. 16 of 2019 on the ground of limitation, refusing to condone the delay. The State Commission had passed its order on 11.10.2022. The petitioner preferred the appeal before the National Commission with a delay of 105 days, though self-admitted delay was 56 days. The condonation of delay application pleaded belated acquisition of knowledge of the State Commission’s order. However, the National Commission noted the petitioner’s admission of having received a copy of the order from the respondent on 15.12.2022, rendering the plea of belated knowledge untenable. The Commission, after elaborate consideration of the grounds, found insufficient cause to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The core issue before the High Court was whether the National Commission’s discretionary order refusing condonation was perverse or arbitrary, warranting interference under Article 226. The Court observed that Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers the National Commission to condone delay beyond the limitation period of 30 days only if satisfied that sufficient cause existed. It held that once the Commission had exercised its discretion after thoroughly examining the facts and finding the explanation insufficient, its decision should not be lightly interfered with. The Court found that the Commission’s reasoning based on the petitioner’s admission of receipt of the order was rational, and no illegality or perversity was demonstrated. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection – Condonation of Delay – Discretionary Power – Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 51 – The National Commission is empowered to condone delay beyond the prescribed limitation period of 30 days only if it is satisfied that sufficient cause existed. The Commission found that the appellant’s plea of belated acquisition of knowledge was contradicted by its own admission of having received the State Commission’s order on 15.12.2022, and the delay of 105 days was not sufficiently explained. The High Court held that since the National Commission had elaborately considered the sufficiency of reasons and exercised its discretion, no interference under Article 226 was warranted. Held that the writ petition is dismissed (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order dated 30.01.2024 dismissing the appeal as time-barred due to insufficient cause for delay condonation is liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the National Commission had elaborately considered the facts and formed an opinion that the power of discretion need not be exercised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 51
- Consumer Protection Act
- 2019 – National Commission may condone delay beyond 30 days upon sufficient cause
- exercise of discretion is not to be lightly interfered with under Article 226
- admission of receipt of order negates plea of belated knowledge
- High Court will not substitute its own view where Commission has elaborately considered the grounds
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 155
S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar
M. Baskar, M. Kasthuri, S.V.D. Rajendra Prasad
BCIL ZED RIA Properties Pvt Ltd.
The Registrar, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and Arvind
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing an appeal due to refusal to condone delay.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the National Commission’s order dated 30.01.2024 in First Appeal No. 591 of 2023.
Filing Reason
The petitioner’s appeal before the National Commission against the State Commission’s order was dismissed on the ground of delay; the petitioner contended that the delay was justified but the National Commission found insufficient cause.
Previous Decisions
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu passed an order in Complaint No. 16 of 2019 on 11.10.2022. The petitioner’s appeal before the National Commission was filed with a delay of 105 days (self-admitted 56 days). The National Commission, by order dated 30.01.2024, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to belated acquisition of knowledge of the State Commission’s order and that sufficient cause existed for condonation.
The National Commission concluded that the grounds for delay were insufficient, noting the petitioner’s admission of having received the order on 15.12.2022, which negated the plea of belated knowledge.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the National Commission has discretionary power to condone delay beyond the limitation period of 30 days only if sufficient cause is shown. Where the Commission has considered the sufficiency of the reasons and formed an opinion that the discretion should not be exercised, the High Court under Article 226 will not ordinarily interfere unless the decision is perverse or arbitrary. A plea of belated knowledge fails when the party admits to having received the order earlier.
Judgment Excerpts
The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 30.01.2024 in First Appeal No.591 of 2023.
Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, confers powers on the National Commission to condone the delay beyond the limitation period of 30 days, unless the Commission is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed.
Since the National Commission has considered the sufficiency of the reasons elaborately and formed an opinion that the power of discretion need not be exercised in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further interference is called for.
Procedural History
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu passed an order in Complaint No. 16 of 2019 on 11.10.2022. The petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 591 of 2023 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a delay of 105 days (self-admitted 56 days). The National Commission dismissed the appeal on 30.01.2024, refusing to condone the delay. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court, which heard and dismissed it on 05.03.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Section 51
- Constitution of India: Article 226
