Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.A. Zaidi, President and M.L. Sahni, Member
NARAYANA IIT ACADEMY - Appellant
Versus
JAGBIR SINGH DABAS - Respondent
Appeal No. FA-10/306
Decided on : 15-09-2010
The court emphasized the peremptory nature of the limitation period under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act and the duty of the Consumer Forum to examine and condone the delay only if 'sufficient cause' is shown.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Appeal Delay - The court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal, stating that the reasons given by the appellant did not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay. The court referred to the provisions of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act and the Supreme Court's judgment in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, emphasizing the peremptory nature of the limitation period and the duty of the Consumer Forum to examine and condone the delay only if 'sufficient cause' is shown.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order directing them to refund a sum of money to the complainant. The appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay due to a 59-day delay in filing the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the application for condonation of delay, stating that the reasons given by the appellant did not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the peremptory nature of the limitation period under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act and the duty of the Consumer Forum to examine and condone the delay only if 'sufficient cause' is shown.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to release any deposited FDR after completing due formalities.
ORDER
M.L. Sahni, Member (Judicial)- Narayana IIT Academy-OP before District Forum has filed this appeal against the order dated 15.1.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 50/2009 by the District Forum III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, directing them to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs. 45,000 out of total tuition fee of Rs. 53,932, within 30 days of receipt of the impugned order.
2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Before hearing on admission of the appeal on merits, we have thought it expedient to dispose of the application for delay because, admittedly there is 20 days delay in preferring the present appeal.
4. We have, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on their application praying for condonation of delay stating that the Head Office of the appellant is situated at Hyderabad and the F.D.Rs and other formalities like signature, approval etc. are also to be got approved/prepared by Head-Office , therefore, the delay in filing the present appeal occurred.
5. The appeal in this case has been filed on 15.4.2010, while order impugned by the Appellant is dated 15.1.2010.
6. As per Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, appeal could have been preferred within 30 days of the date of order i.e. it should have been filed by 14.2.2010, whereas the present appeal is preferred only on 15.4.2010, thus there is delay of 59 days. Proviso to this Section, no doubt, empowers this Commission for condoning the delay, if the aggrieved person shows to the satisfaction of the Commission that there was 'sufficient cause' for not preferring the appeal within prescribed period of limitation.
7-8. It is stated in the application that the copy of order dated 15.1.2010 was received only on 13.2.2010. If it is believed even then, appeal should have been preferred on 15.3.2010, whereas the Appellant did so only on 15.4.2010 after 29 days of the receipt of the impugned order.
9. The reasons given in the present appeal by the Appellant in preferring the appeal after limitation by no stretch of reasoning constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest judgment reported as State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP), considered the provisions of limitation as contained in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Although the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only the delay in filing the complaint in the first instance beyond the period of two years as laid down in the statutory provisions but the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
"It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24-A is sort of legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing, in other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside".
The law of the Supreme
