Back
2013 Supreme(SC) 1313
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Nission Edu. Consultants Rep. Mng. Dir. - Petitioner
Versus
M. Sangeetha - Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 39368 of 2012.
Decided On : 14-1-2013
For the Petitioner:- Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Advocate.
Refusal to condone delay in filing an appeal must be based on valid grounds and justifications, as per established legal principles.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Consumer Dispute - The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, leading to dismissal of the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought condonation of 382 days delay in filing an appeal against the State Commission's order directing refund of the amount deposited for admission in MBBS course.
Finding of the Court:
The National Commission refused to condone the delay, citing lack of valid ground or justification, and upheld the impugned order. The special leave petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner one month's time to comply with the State Commission's order.
Issues: Delay condonation, refusal to entertain the prayer for condonation of delay, compliance with the State Commission's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The National Commission's refusal to condone the delay was based on the legal correctness of the reasons assigned, as per the judgment in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2012(1) CPC 3 S.C.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was allowed one month's time to comply with the State Commission's order.
ORDER :
The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to condone 382 days delay in the filing of an appeal against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai.
2. The State Commission allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to refund the amount deposited by her for providing admission in MBBS course at Rostov University by observing that the petitioner was guilty in deficiency of service.
3. The petitioner challenged the order of the State Commission by filing an appeal. It also filed an application for condonation of 382 days delay.
4. The National Commission noted that notice of the complaint filed by the respondent in 2009 was duly served upon the petitioner and although it had appeared through Mr. Sam Arun Prasad but vakalatnama and written statement were not filed and on 28.4.2011 it was set ex-parte. The National Commission held that there was no valid ground or justification to entertain the prayer made for condonation of delay. In arriving at this conclusion, the National Commission relied upon the judgment in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2012(1) CPC 3 S.C.
5. In our view, the reasons assigned by the National Commission refusing to condone the delay are legally correct and the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
6. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
The petitioner is allowed one month's time to comply with the order of the State Commission. It shall submit compliance report before the State Commission within a period of 6 weeks from today.
Petition dismissed.
