Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1967

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, Member
Star Health & Allied Ins. Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Aggarwal – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 641/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raghav Goel, Manoj Kumar & Associates

The law of limitation must be applied with rigour; a party seeking condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act must provide a satisfactory, day-to-day explanation justifying the delay to establish 'sufficient cause', otherwise, the appeal is barred by limitation.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 107 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 6(b) - Limitation - Condonation of delay - Appellant filed appeal against order of District Commission - Application for condonation of delay filed without mentioning sufficient cause - Whether delay should be condoned - Held that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is prospective in nature, and pending cases are governed by the 1986 Act - Appellant failed to provide cogent reasons or explain the delay in a day-to-day manner - Application for condonation of delay dismissed.

Facts of the case:
The appellant (insurance company) challenged an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a complaint case. The appeal was filed with a significant delay. The appellant cited difficulty in obtaining the certified copy from the registry and misinformation as the cause for the delay.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the appellant provided no specific dates regarding when the counsel visited the registry or took steps to prepare the appeal, leading to an unexplained delay of 88 to 92 days. The court emphasized that the limitation period must be strictly adhered to and the appellant failed to show 'sufficient cause' to justify the delay.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned given the explanations provided by the applicant and whether the provisions of the new Consumer Protection Act apply retrospectively to pending matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Legislations are generally prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. Under the 1986 Act, the appellant has not demonstrated sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and the courts must apply the law of limitation with rigour to ensure expeditious adjudication.

Result: Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction and procedural context of the appeal against the lower commission's order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. determination that consumer law amendments are prospective and the old act applies to pending matters. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. appellant's explanation for the delay and the statutory limitation period under the act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. analysis of 'sufficient cause' and the failure of the appellant to provide a bona fide justification for the delay. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. final outcome: dismissal of the condonation application and the appeal due to lack of sufficient cause. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

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

1. The present appeal has been filed on 22.12.2025 (through online mode vide reference no. 202512221902) and 26.12.2025 (physically) challenging the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed in Complaint Case No.714/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi District) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.2938/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Authorized Representative of the appellant has been filed along with this application.

3. We have given considerable thought to the submissions put forth by counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the record.

4. The application has been moved without mentioning any provision of law. Since, 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. 2938/2025 filed along with the appeal on 22.12.2025 (online) and 26.12.2025 (physically) is maintainable under the New Act/Old Act.

5. 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.”

6. We 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”

7. 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 genera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1967

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONSangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, MemberStar Health & Allied Ins. Co. Ltd. – AppellantVersusVinod Kumar Aggarwal – RespondentFIRST APPEAL NO. 641/2025

The law of limitation must be applied with rigour; a party seeking condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act must provide a satisfactory, day-to-day explanation justifying the delay to establish 'sufficient cause', otherwise, the appeal is barred by limitation.

Cases Referred (3)

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, Member
Star Health & Allied Ins. Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Aggarwal – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 641/2025