Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAVINDER DUDEJA
General Manager, Northern Railways – Appellant
Versus
Harleen Kaur – Respondent
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.
The law of limitation applies to all parties, including government entities, and sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delays in filing appeals.
The High Court under Article 227 reviews lower tribunal orders focusing on merits and procedural propriety, ensuring sufficient grounds are presented for delay condonation in revisions.
Delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause; litigants must demonstrate vigilance and accountability regarding timely legal action.
The court upheld the rejection of a delay condonation application, emphasizing that insufficient reasons do not justify extending statutory limitations.
Limitation – Condonation of delay – Term “sufficient cause” u/Section 5 of Limitation Act should be liberally construed promote substantial justice, when delays are not due to dilatory tactics, bad f....
WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being proper certificate as mandated under Evidence Act, 1872.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
