Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member
Divisional Manager Office of
the Divisional Manger CG State Forest
Development Corporation Limited – Petitioner
versus
Gulam Mustafa and Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No.263 of 2025
(Against the Order dated 27th February 2025 in Appeal SC/22/A/24/694 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhattisgarh) with NC/IA/6462/2025 (Condonation of Delay)
Decided on 4.6.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Muskan Chandrakar, Advocate (VC)
IMPORTANT POINT
Condonation of delay – It is the satisfaction of the fora considering the application for condonation of delay about the sufficiency of cause.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Appeal – Condonation of Delay – Concurrent findings of fact – Whether the learned State Commission has erred in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay filing without considering the merits of the grounds of appeal of the appellant – Primarily, it is the satisfaction of the fora considering the application for condonation of delay about the sufficiency of cause and Commission cannot substitute our satisfaction unless it is shown that the fora below improperly exercised its discretion to consider the application for delay based on untenable, arbitrary, or perverse grounds and/or its order suffers from any illegality or material irregularity – The reasons for the delay in filing the First Appeal before the State Commission are not found convincing. The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order – Appeal dismissed. [Para 6 to 9]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Heard learned counsels for the Appellant.
2. Challenge is to order dated 07.01.2025 of the State Commission in Appeal No FA/24/694 of 2024, vide which the first appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed on account of limitation, having been filed with a delay of 153 days. In the second appeal, the following question of law has been stated:
“That the present second appeal raises the following substantial question of laws and issues which require the adjudication by this hon’ble Commission: -
A. Whether the appellant is competent authority to prepare the registration certificate of the questioned vehicle as directed by the learned District Commission?
B. Whether the learned State Commission has erred in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay filing without considering the merits of the grounds of appeal of the appellant?”
3. The Appellant has challenged the orders of the State Commission on following grounds:
(i) The State Commission has erred in law by dismissing the appeal on ground of delay without considering the merits of appeal of the Appellant.
(ii) The Appellant has a very good case in their favour, but the State Commission, without carefully perusing the operative part of the District Commission’s order, rejected the condonation of delay application on mere technical grounds.
(iii) The Appellant is not the R.T.O. office. The job of making the registration certificate is that of the R.T.O. office only. However, the District Commission wrongly directed the Appellant to prepare and provide the certificate for vehicle Mahindra Xylo CG-10/X/0649 within 60 days.
(iv) The District Commission passed the order on 02.05.2024, and its information along with the certified copy was received by the Appellant on 21.05.2024 through their counsel. The Appellant then wrote to their superior authority on 28.05.2024 for guidance. Subsequently, the Regional General Manager forwarded it to the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh. On 04.06.2024, a letter was sent to the State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Raipur. After receiving the legal opinion on 18.07.2024, the Appellant forwarded all documents on 19.07.2024. These facts were overlooked by the State Commission.
(v) A recommendation to file an appeal was received from the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Raipur, via memo dated 22.08.2024, received on 27.08.2024. After completing official procedures and following the Second Proviso of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the cheque was deposited on 18.11.2024. Delay occurred due to official process beyond appellant’s control, but the State Commission overlooked these facts in I.A. No. 01/2024.
(vi) Application for condonation of delay, sufficient reasons and supporting documents were submitted, yet the State Commission did not rely on any documents and rejected the application on technical grounds, despite merits being in appellant’s favour.
(vii) The State Commission overlooked that dismissing a delayed appeal on technical grounds grants no relief, especially when the appeal favors the appellant and the impugned order cannot be complied with.
(viii) The State Commission overlooked the evidence on record and passed the impugned order merely on presumption. The case laws cited are distinguishable. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. The main question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the State Commission was justified in declining condonation of delay in filing the Appeal and dismiss it as barred by limitation. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, other relevant records and contentions of the Petitioner herein. We have also considered the reasons for delay as contained in the condonation of delay application filed by the petitioner herein before the State Commission in the light of observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission in va
