IN THE n a t io n a l g o n sumer dispvt es r ed r essa l c o mmissio n SECOND APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2026.

IA/1618/2026 (Amendment of condonation of delay)

M/s. New Singhal Transport Company Through Proprietor and vehicle owner Vinod Kumar Singhal, Cast Mahajan, Plot No. 19, zLKJIHGInFEdDiCraBA Colony, Bajaria ... Petitioner Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan)

Versus Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd-

Divisional Qffice-94B, Harikripa, Jawahar Nagar, ... Respondent Sawaimadhppur, Rajasthan BEFORE'

HON’BLE AVNI J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), HQN’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER : Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Advocate For the Petitioner Dated : 1U7T.S0R2Q.2P0O26NMLKJIHGFEDCBA

ORDER (ORAL)

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

1.

As per the report of the Registry, there is 466 days delay in filing

2.

this Second Appeal. The Petitioner filed I.A. No. 1618 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay wherein the Petitioner has brought out that this Revision is preferred against the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan in Appeal No. 96 of 2023 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. During November, 2024 the Petitioner had discussed with his earlier counsel, who appeared before State Commission, regarding filing of a Second Appeal. He was advised to file a Second Appeal before the NCDRC. Thereafter, during the first week of December 2Q24, the Petitioner engaged the present counsel to file the Revision Petition before this Commission. Subsequently, the present application for condonation of delay was drafted, and thus the Second Appeal is being filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel and carefully perused the records. The law of limitation requires delay for each day of delay to be explained after expiry of the period of limitation. It is necessary that this explanation is rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable. A perusal of the application for the condonation of delay establishes beyond doubt that the delay was caused because the Petitioner dealt with the case in a rather routine and casual manner.UTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

5. In State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC121 decided on 20.03.2009 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:

“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the 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 a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder.

12. 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 Section24A 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.

[Emphasis added]

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the settled legal proposition of law of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party. The Petitioner has not been able to provide adequate and sufficient reasons which prevented him to approach this Commission within the limitation.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that party who has not acted diligently or remained in