Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prof (Mrs) Nelly Rodrigues, a retired lecturer, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 20.09.2023 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which dismissed her application for condonation of delay in filing a revision against the order of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 26.03.2018. The revision was filed under Section 12(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with a delay of 125 days. The petitioner's application for condonation of delay cited two grounds: her own illness (spinal stenosis) and the shifting of her advocate's office premises in Delhi, which led to misplacement of documents. However, the application did not specify the number of days of delay, leaving a blank in paragraph 7 and the prayer clause. The National Commission dismissed the application, observing that the grounds were cryptic, no supporting documents were produced, and additional grounds were raised orally that were not in the application. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay was only 125 days, sufficiently explained, and that the National Commission should have liberally condoned it, relying on Esha Bhattacharjee and other precedents. The respondents countered that the application was casually drafted, lacked particulars, and the petitioner failed to produce medical or other evidence. The High Court upheld the National Commission's order, finding that the petitioner did not disclose sufficient cause, did not produce documents despite offering to do so, and raised new grounds in the rejoinder that were not in the original application. The court held that it is the duty of the applicant to produce supporting material, not for the tribunal to call for it. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Duty of Applicant - The applicant seeking condonation of delay must disclose sufficient cause and produce supporting documents; it is not the duty of the tribunal to call for documents. The National Commission rightly rejected the application where the grounds were cryptic, the number of delay days was left blank, and no medical or other evidence was produced despite the applicant's offer to produce if required. (Paras 20-27) B) Article 227 - Jurisdiction over Tribunals - Maintainability - An order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, being a tribunal, can be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, as held in Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand Jain & Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 877. (Para 10) C) Condonation of Delay - Liberal Approach - While delay of 125 days is not inordinate, the applicant must still provide a satisfactory explanation. The principles in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, require the applicant to carefully draft the application and enclose necessary material. (Paras 11, 16, 22-23) D) Condonation of Delay - Blaming Advocate - Blaming the advocate for delay without sufficient particulars is not a good ground, as per Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another Vs. Gopi Chand Atreja, (2019) 4 SCC 612. (Para 17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 125 days in filing a revision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the National Commission's order. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- sufficient cause
- duty of applicant to produce documents
- Article 227 jurisdiction over tribunals
- Consumer Protection Act revision
