RAJENDER KUMAR Late Sh.Chander Bhan vs TATA AIG GENERAL INS.CO.LTD.

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 39737

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Bimla Kumari, Member
RAJENDER KUMAR Late Sh.Chander Bhan – Appellant
Versus
TATA AIG GENERAL INS.CO.LTD. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 81/2025

Important Points

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is prospective; cases initiated under the 1986 Act remain governed by it. Condonation of delay requires a bona fide explanation of 'sufficient cause,' and vague claims of counsel's negligence without specific dates or details are insufficient to condone delay.

Subject

Consumer Law - Condonation of Delay

Act Referred

Limitation Act: S.5
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: S.15
Consumer Protection Act, 2019: S.107
General Clauses Act, 1897: S.6(b)
Income Tax Act, 1961: S.113

Headnote

The appellant filed an appeal against an order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-V, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which the court considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court determined that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is prospective in nature, and therefore, proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act continue to be governed by the same, as supported by Section 107 of the 2019 Act and Section 6(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The primary issue was whether the appellant demonstrated "sufficient cause" for a delay of 177 days in filing the appeal. The court reasoned that the appellant failed to provide specific dates regarding the knowledge of the order or the engagement of counsel, and the vague attribution of negligence to previous counsel without supporting details did not constitute a bona fide explanation. The court emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied with rigour and that the object of expeditious adjudication in consumer disputes would be defeated by entertaining highly belated petitions. the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anuj Kumar, Sambhav Chaudhary
For the Respondents: None

Table of Content
1. appeal filed with application for condonation of delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. consumer protection act 2019 is prospective in nature. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. appeal filed after 177 days beyond statutory limit. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. sufficient cause requires bona fide and non-negligent conduct. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. lack of specific details renders delay explanation insufficient. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. application for condonation and appeal dismissed. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

PER: HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

1. The present appeal has been filed on 21.01.2025 challenging the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.541/2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-V (North-West District), CSC, Block C, Pocket-C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1609/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of the appellant has been filed along with this application.

3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

4. The application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.541/2013.

5. A bare perusal of the application reflects that it has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the entire proceedings of the present case took place according to the Old Act. Hence, before delving into the merits of the present application, it is imperative to ascertain whether the present application bearing IA No. 1609/2025 filed along with the appeal on 24.12.2024 is maintainable under the New Act/Old Act.

6. The repeal of a law shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment i.e. the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall continue for cases which had been filed prior to the implementation of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on 20.07.2020. The same can be gauged through the repeal and saving section (Section 107) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which has been reproduced below:

“107. (1) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.

(3) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of repeal.”

7. I may also take the assistance of Section 6 (b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to further this view. Section 6 (b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has been reproduced below:

“6 Effect of repeal. : Where this Act, or any 1 [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder”

8. Moreover, unless the legislature explicitly provides that the amendment is retrospective in nature, it will be considered prospective. The aforesaid view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 1 wherein the Court discussed the proviso to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that it was prospective and not retrospective. While deciding the case, the Constitution Bench laid down certain general principles which have been reproduced as under:

“28. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one estab