Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 31490
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT, PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
FIROZ AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
AXIS BANK LTD – Respondent
Consumer Case | C.C. No. 134/2016 | Appeal | FA-103/20
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
The court held that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence for condoning a delay of 312 days in filing an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Delay in filing an appeal - Applicant/appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 312 days without sufficient cause - Statutory period for filing appeal is thirty days - COVID-19 pandemic impact not applicable as the delay occurred prior to lockdown. (Paras 6, 10, 14, 18)
(B) Sufficient Cause - Definition as provided by the Supreme Court - Applicant must provide satisfactory explanation to justify delay - The applicant failed to substantiate reasons for delay with documentary evidence. (Paras 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed 312 days late due to the applicant's illness, family emergencies, and the pandemic. However, sufficient cause was not demonstrated, especially for the delays outside the pandemic period.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed due to failure to show sufficient cause for the delay, indicating the stringent standards required under the Consumer Protection Act for appeal provisions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal exceeding the period stipulated by law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere claims of illness and family issues without adequate documentation do not meet the threshold for sufficient cause, emphasizing the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies as per the Act.
Result: Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of illness and family emergencies were insufficiently documented. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. legal standards dictate strict adherence to appeal timelines. (Para 8 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. the appeal was filed late with inadequate justification. (Para 18) |
1. The present appeal has been filed on 24.08.2020 impugning the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi), Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate in C.C. No. 134/2016.
2. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is still pending and is being decided.
3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
Appellant has filed written submissions vide diary no. 8116 dated 17.10.2022. Despite opportunities, respondent has preferred not to file written submissions.
4. Provision of law has not been mentioned in this application. This application is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .This application is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Firoz Ahmad i.e. applicant/appellant/complainant.
5. As per the case of applicant/appellant/complainant, the certified copy of the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 was prepared on 02.10.2019 and the same was received by the applicant/appellant/complainant by hand on 22.10.2019. He had gone to Patna in the first week of December 2019 to meet his old parents who were not keeping good health due to old age ailments. He was compelled to stay in Patna for the entire month of December 2019 and returned in second week of January 2020. Unfortunately he got ill due to cold wave and viral fever and was under medical treatment in January 2020. He became physically weak, therefore, he could not immediately engaged a counsel for drafting and filing of the appeal. In the first week of February 2020, he had to again visit Patna for some urgent family work and could return in the last week of February 2020. In the first week of March 2020 on 06.03.2020, he met local counsel seeking legal opinion in this matter. Legal counsel called a meeting on 07.03.2020 and it was suggested that he may challenge the impugned order. Again from 09.03.2020 to 15.03.2020 he was unwell due severe cough, cold & viral infection and was on complete bed rest. Therefore, he could not visit the office of the counsel for drafting the appeal against the impugned order. Somehow on 20.03.2020, he visited the counsel’s office for drafting the appeal and it was drafted on 20.03.2020. Appellant took the draft of appeal and records to settle the same and assured visiting the counsel’s office within a couple of days. In the evening of 20.03.2020, he received telephonic call from his father from Patna that his mother was not well since last week and she need immediate medical attention and his presence in Patna was required. Therefore, he travelled to Patna on 21.03.2020 and he reached at Patna on 21.03.2020 in the night by road. On
23.03.2020, he had taken his mother to the doctor. The doctor advised her continued treatment and complete rest, therefore, he had long stay at Patna.
6. The applicant/appellant/complainant has also submitted that in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic and the guidelines/protocols issued by the World Health Organization on 24.03.2020, complete lock down was announced by the Government of India. All the transport facilities, movement of people and non-essential services were totally stopped by the Central Government as well as the State Governments. In view of the complete lock down and ill health and old age of his mother, the appellant could not travel to Delhi till 17.08.2020. Therefore, he could not visit the office of his counsel as it was closed due to lock down. The applicant/appellant/complainant has relied on the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020
7. He has also submitted that in second week of August 2020 when his mother regained her lost health and can take care of herself, the appellant planned
