Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 217
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13 th January 2025 Judgment pronounced on: 04 February 2025 +
CM(M) 42/2025 & CM APPL Nos. 1675/2025, CM 1673/2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Apoorv Sarvaria, Ms.Yashika Sarvaria, Mr.Sahaj Aggarwal and Ms.Simran Chadha, Advs. versus M/S GLOBE CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms.Dipika Prasad and Mr.S.S. Sobti, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Mr. Apoorv Sarvaria, Ms.Yashika Sarvaria, Mr.Sahaj Aggarwal and Ms.Simran Chadha, Advs., Ms.Dipika Prasad and Mr.S.S. Sobti, Advs.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be established for condoning delays in filing petitions, particularly under the Consumer Protection Act, to uphold the integrity of the law of limitation.
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 58(1)(b) - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Petition filed against NCDRC's dismissal of revision petition due to delay of 127 days - Delay not condoned as insufficient cause was shown - The court emphasized the need for credible explanations for delay, particularly in consumer matters. (Paras 1, 9, 21, 24)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Principles for condoning delay - The court reiterated that a liberal approach should be adopted, but sufficient cause must be established to justify the delay. (Paras 12, 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the NCDRC's order dismissing its revision petition due to a delay of 127 days in filing. The respondent claimed losses under an insurance policy, which was initially rejected by the petitioner. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims regarding the delay, emphasizing the need for credible explanations and the importance of adhering to statutory limitations. (Paras 21-24)
Issues: The main issues included whether the delay in filing the revision petition could be condoned and the adequacy of the explanations provided by the petitioner. (Paras 9, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the explanations for the delay were vague and insufficient, and emphasized that the law of limitation must be respected to ensure timely justice. (Paras 21-24)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.07.2024, passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [“NCDRC” ], whereby, the National Commission has dismissed the revision petition bearing Revision Petition bearing RP No. 1773/2024, filed by the petitioner under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the ground of there being a delay of 127 days in filing the said petition.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that respondent filed claim with the petitioner under the Stock Broker’s Indemnity Insurance Policy, claiming that it had suffered losses to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/- on account of negligence of its employee.
3. On the basis of the examination conducted by the petitioner and the report of the Surveyor, the claim of the respondent was rejected and the claim file was closed.
4. Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 1747/2008 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
5. The District Commission vide order dated 10.03.2025, dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent.
6. Respondent thereafter filed an appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [“SCDRC” ] against the order dated 10.03.2025 of the District Commission.
7. The State Commission vide order dated 01.03.2023, allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent Rs. 9,50,000/- as the loss suffered, Rs. 2000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 50,000/- for cost of litigation.
8. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 along with an application, seeking condonation of delay. The delay was of 127 days, though mistakenly, the same was mentioned as 31 days in the application seeking condonation of delay.
9. Vide impugned order dated 11.07.2024, the NCDRC dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the revision petition and accordingly also dismissed the revision petition being barred by limitation.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that National Commission has not considered properly, the well explained delay in filing the revision petition. It is submitted that matter had to proceed at different levels before the petitioner could finally get permission to file the revision petition.
11. It is submitted that National Commission failed to consider the factors which contributed to the delay, inasmuch as, petitioner had to first seek opinion from the lawyers for filing the revision petition, which took considerable time and thereafter, file was sent to the Head Office. Since the policy was old, the Regional Office took its time to handover the relevant documents and the same were provided only in the month of May 2023. The Delhi office after receiving the documents, handed over the same to the counsel for filing the revision petition. The delay thereafter occurred on the part of the counsel as at first the counsel was not well and later the file was misplaced in her office. It is thus submitted that delay in filing the revision petition was neither intentional nor deliberate.
12. It is argued that the National Commission should have adopted a pragmatic approach to decide the case on merits rather than to thwart the cause at the very threshold on the ground of limitation. In support of its arguments, learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court on the case of Collector (LA) Vs. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 .
13. It is submitted that NCDRC while dismissing the revision petition, has granted relief to the respondent which it was not entitled to as per law.
14. Before going into the reasons furnished by the petitioner, it is necessary to consider various landmark decisions on the point of limitation.
15. In Collector (LA) Vs. Katiji (supra), while consideri
