The law of limitation applies to all parties, including government entities, and sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delays in filing appeals.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 23.10.2024 in Revision Petition No. 1356/2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [in short “National Commission”] and order dated 20.12.2023 in Appeal No. A/643/2023, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [in short “State Commission”].

2. Complainant Smt. Harleen Kaur filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi against the petitioner. Her grievance in the complaint was that she was travelling in train against a reserved seat and that when the train was about to reach the destination station, an unidentified individual entered the coach and snatched her purse and jumped out of the moving train. Respondent claimed that TTE/Railway Staff carelessly left the door of the coach open, and thus, there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner, since it was the duty of the Railways to provide safe, secure and comfortable journey as well as safety and security of luggage of passengers.

3. The complaint was disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2023 and the operative part of the order reads as under:-

“10. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs, to pay jointly and/or severely a sum of Rs. 6,05,000/- apart from compensation/damages of Rs. 20,000/- besides cost of Rs. 5,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

In case OPs do not pay the amount within the aforementioned period of 30 days, then OPs will be liable to pay interest @ 6% pa on amount of Rs. 6,05,000/- from the date of filing of complaint till realisation of amount.”

4. Petitioner challenged the order by filing an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The State Commission treated the said application as under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but vide order dated 20.12.2023, the application was dismissed along with the appeal.

5. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed revision before the National Forum. However, the revision has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since NCDRC and SCDRC failed to consider that the actual delay was only of 40 days and not 109 days. It is submitted that petitioner obtained certified copy only on 15.09.2023 and as per law, limitation is to be calculated from the date of receipt of certified copy. Thus computing, the period available to the petitioner for filing the appeal was till 15.11.2023. The appeal having been filed on 29.11.2023, the actual delay was only of 14 days. It is submitted that whatever delay occurred, was due to the fact that Railway Panel was scraped and the railway matters thereafter were being dealt by the Office of Union of India. Hence, procedural delay occurred in the appointment of the Advocate by Union of India.

7. It is further submitted that petitioner is Central Government body and therefore NCDRC and SCDRC should have considered that the delay occurred due to administrative approvals/delays. It is submitted that there was no mala-fide on the part of the Railways in filing the appeal before the State Commission. It is further submitted that the matter involves a substantial question of law, and therefore, both the Forums below should have been more liberal in condoning the delay and should not have adopted a hyper-technical approach.

8. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that appeal was preferred before the State Commissioner after a delay of 109 days, as recorded in the order passed by the National Commission and petitioner being a Government Organization, cannot claim any special privilege for the grant of discretionary relief of condonation. It is further submitted that petitioner failed to explain the delay, and therefore, both the forums below have rightly refused to condone the delay. Le