Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 7157
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. MONIKA MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
MANAGER RAILWAY – Appellant
Versus
GHANSHYAM LODHI – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/FA/176/2025 | Complaint DC/435/CC/19/299
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sandeep Savita
For the Respondents: Ms. Sambhavna Rajput
Timeliness in filing appeals under consumer law is critical, and insufficient justification for delays can lead to dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Delay in filing appeal - Application for condonation of delay was filed by the appellant, citing procedural delays in obtaining necessary permissions - The court found the reasons insufficient, emphasizing adherence to the prescribed limitation period - Condonation of delay was ultimately denied. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Legal Principles - A party aggrieved by the District Commission's order must file an appeal within 45 days, barring special circumstances - Precedents highlight the need for timely appeals to uphold the integrity of consumer dispute resolution. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from the District Commission's order, which was partially in favor of the complainant. The appellant cited delays in departmental procedures.
Findings of Court:
The court found no justifiable grounds to condone a significant delay of over a year.
Issues: The key issue was whether the explanations provided justified the substantial delay in filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of timely appeals in consumer matters and stated that the appellate authority must not entertain highly belated petitions, hence denying the application for condonation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in appeal process must be justified. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. sufficient cause must be shown for delays. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. timeliness in appeals ensures justice. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. delay dismissal rationale. (Para 9) |
| 5. final ruling on appeal dismissal. (Para 10) |
ORDER
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2025 (Arising out of order dated 11.05.2023 passed in C.C.No.299/2019 by District Commission, Ujjain)
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY, RATLAM & ORS. … APPELLANTS Versus GHANSHYAM LODHI. … RESPONDENT.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : PRESIDING MEMBER O R D E R
11.06.2025 Shri Sandeep Savita, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent.
As per Dr. Monika Malik:
Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA-1 application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-Railways (hereinafter referred to as 'Railways') arises out of the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.299/2019 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent.
3. As per office report, this appeal is barred by 1 year 7 months and 4 days. In IA-1, the application dated nil for condonation of delay, the reasons stated are that the delay was caused in taking necessary permissions and while completing the departmental procedure.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no malafide intention in filing the appeal belated. The appellant has shown reasons for the delay caused in the application for condonation of delay. He argued that the delay occured on account of obtaining departmental permission in following the departmental procedure. He argued that if the application is not allowed, the very purpose of filing this appeal will be defeated. He thus argued that the delay is bonafide and therefore prayed for allowing the application for condonation of delay.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay I find that opposite party/appellant has failed to explain sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Railways is not expected to take more than one year's time in getting permission and completing formalities.
6. Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is relevant to mention here, wherein it has been mentioned that in case any party is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Commission, the appeal can be filed against the said order to the State Commission within a period of 45 days from the date of order. Further it has been mentioned that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after expiry of period of 45 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within the period of limitation.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwarl Vs New Okhala Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has clearly held that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters.
8. On going through the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal (supra) I find that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against orders of Consumer Fora. Hon'ble National Commission in FA/1678/2019 ( Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs Arun Kumar Bansal ) decided on 12 July, 2024, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal (supra) has taken same view.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, no case is made out to condone the huge delay of more than 1 year. In the circ
