Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 7034
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, PRESIDENT, SRI. AJITH KUMAR D., JUDICIAL MEMBER, SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R., MEMBER
M/S Kalyan Silks – Appellant
Versus
Pro Sarah Thomas – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/FA/89/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aswin Gopakumar
For the Respondents:
A party must demonstrate due diligence when seeking to condone delays in filing appeals; lack of substantial grounds for delay leads to dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Delay in filing an appeal - Application for condonation of delay of 366 days was not sufficient as the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence - The petition was dismissed on grounds of gross negligence and lack of valid explanation for the delay. (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Law of Limitation - The court emphasized the necessity for expedient resolution of consumer disputes and reiterated that applications must provide adequate reasoning, as the delay was inordinate and negligent. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed that a shuffle in senior management led to a delay in filing the appeal against a prior order. The appeal time limit was missed due to administrative disruptions.
Findings of Court:
The reasons provided were deemed inadequate, resulting in the dismissal of the application to condone the delay.
Issues: The main issue before the court was whether sufficient cause existed to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the administrative reasons cited did not warrant a condonation of delay, emphasizing that there must be clear evidence of diligence to justify such requests.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. administrative disruptions cited but deemed insufficient for delay. (Para 4) |
| 2. emphasized need for timely resolution of consumer disputes. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court rules that explanations for delay must be valid and rigorous. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 4. application for condonation of delay ultimately dismissed. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT This is an application praying for condoning the delay of 366 days in filing the appeal.
2. Objection has been filed by the respondent opposing the application.
3. Heard. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the application.
4. It is contended that the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the District Commission was received by the petitioner on 01.02.2024 and hence the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 02.03.2024. After the receipt of the order, there was shuffling in the senior management of the petitioner due to which there was disruption in the usual workflow and responsibilities. In the meantime, the respondent filed execution petition seeking remedy under Sec. 72 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019. After receiving notice in the execution proceedings, the counsel appeared before the District Commission on 20.05.2024 and sought for time to file objection to the execution petition. There was also delay in engaging a lawyer and instructing him to file the appeal. In the said circumstances, there occurred a delay of 366 days in filing the appeal.
5. The object of the law of limitation is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. We may now go through the authorities on the point before proceeding further.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011 KHC 5263 :2011 (14) SCC 578) held in paragraph 5 as hereinbelow:-
“5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer fora”.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy(Died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 KHC 6197 : 2024 INSC 286 : 2024 Live Law (SC) 288, after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself. It was further held in the above decision that a right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs.(Supra) that the courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause is explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence. The Apex Court also held that the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay.
8. The National Commission in Liberty Videocon General Insurance Vs. MS.
Rathod in First Appeal No. 1189 of 2023 held that where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence, the delay condonation petition cannot be permitted. In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application seeking for condoning the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal.
9. The National Commission in Appeal Execution No. 8 of 2024 held that when the appeal is filed beyond limitati
