SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 194

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
M/S. Beml Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
R. Danush & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 921 Of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition(Civil)No. 12211 Of 2024)
Decided On : 22-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR, Mr. Chhatresh Kumar Sahu, Adv., Ms. Chitranasha, Adv., Mr. Shrinivas Patil, Adv.
For the Respondent: M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR, Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv., Mr. S.k Pandey, Adv., Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv.

The court condoned the delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing the need for justice and allowing the NCDRC to decide the case on its merits.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(7) - Delay in filing appeal - The NCDRC dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 288 days, which the appellant contended was unjustified as the respondents were not ‘Consumers’ under the Act - The court found sufficient cause to condone the delay in the interest of justice. (Paras 2, 5, 6)

(B) Jurisdiction - The appellant argued that the State Commission acted without jurisdiction regarding the status of the respondents as consumers - The court did not address the merits of this argument but remitted the matter for a decision on merits. (Paras 3, 8)

Facts of the case:
The appeal was against the NCDRC's order dismissing the appeal due to a significant delay in filing, with the appellant asserting that the respondents were not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the NCDRC's order and remitted the matter for a decision on merits, requiring the appellant to pay costs of Rs.50,000 to the respondents.

Issues: The main issues were whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned and the jurisdiction of the State Commission regarding the consumer status of the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice, emphasizing the need for a merits-based decision by the NCDRC without addressing the consumer status issue.

Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The impugned order is the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘NCDRC’) in First Appeal No. 51 of 2023, whereby the NCDRC has dismissed the appeal, as there was delay of about 288 days which had occurred in filing the appeal, at the instance of the appellant, against the order passed by the Karnataka State Commission.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the very order passed by the State Commission was without jurisdiction as the respondents could not be considered as ‘Consumers’ within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further submitted that the appellant is ready to pay a cost if the matter is remanded to the NCDRC for deciding the appeal on merits.

4. However, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted relying upon the impugned decision of NCDRC that there was no sufficient cause made out by the appellant to condone the delay and this Court may not interfere with the just and legal order passed by the NCDRC.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the issues involved in the appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the delay occurred in filing the appeal before the NCDRC is required to be condoned in the interest of justice.

6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the NCDRC is set aside and the matter is remitted to the NCDRC for deciding the Appeal on merits, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) to be paid by the Appellant to the respondents within a period of four weeks.

7. The appeal is allowed in above-terms.

8. It is clarified that we have not made any observation(s) touching the merits of the case and the NCDRC is directed to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top