Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 115
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana, President, Sunita Sharma, Member, R.K. Verma, Member
Jai Mata Durga Transport Co. – Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Complaint | 148/2011 | M.A. No. 517/2019 | F.A. No. 285/2019
For the Applicant: Mr. Manoj Chauhan
For the Non-applicant: Ms. Amba Bisht, Mr. Jagdish Thakur
Delay in filing appeal not justified; familial loss insufficient as a cause under Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act - Application for condonation of delay - Appeal filed 317 days late due to family disturbance - Commission ruled death in family not a sufficient cause for delay - Upholds the principle of expeditious adjudication under the Act. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Condonation of Delay - Criteria - The court emphasized that death-related ceremonial customs typically necessitate a delay much shorter than 317 days, underscoring the need to maintain efficiency in consumer disputes. (Paras 9.1, 9.2)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a consumer complaint decided by DCF/DCC in favor of the complainant, where compensation was awarded. The complainant sought to condone significant delay in filing the appeal citing familial loss as the reason.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the reasons for delay unsatisfactory and emphasized that allowing such a delay would contravene the objectives of the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: Whether a 317-day delay in filing is justifiable under the circumstances presented by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that familial death does not inherently warrent such a lengthy delay in judicial proceedings; the need for expedience in consumer law remains paramount.
Result: Application for condonation of delay dismissed, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of sufficient cause for appeal delay. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the sufficiency of the delay explanation. (Para 5) |
| 3. examining affidavit submissions for delay justification. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's decision on delay insufficient under cp act. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final order on delayed appeal dismissal. (Para 11) |
1. Present order shall dispose of application filed for condonation of delay of 317 (Three hundred seventeen) days in filing appeal.
Brief facts of matter :-
2. Complainant Jai Mata Durga Transport Company filed consumer complaint 148/2011 titled Jai Mata Durga Transport Co. Vesus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. which was decided on 23.08.2018 by learned DCF/DCC. Learned DCF/DCC ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1548500/-(Fifteen lac forty eight thousand five hundred) to complainant within 30 days from receipt of copy of order. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that in default opposite party would pay interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of complaint i.e. 20.08.2011 till the amount is not paid or realized. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that complainant would hand over letter of subrogation in favour of opposite party immediately and period of thirty days would commence thereafter. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that opposite party would pay punitive compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs.4000/-(Four thousand). Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that opposite party would pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs.4000/-(Four thousand).
3. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned DCF/DCC complainant filed present appeal and sought relief for ordering rate of interest from date of theft of vehicle i.e. 26.11.2005. Alongwith appeal applicant also filed present condonation application pleaded therein that appeal could not be filed within stipulated period as mentioned under Consumer Protection Act because death of nephew occurred and whole family was disturbed. Prayer for condonation of delay of 317 (Three hundred seventeen) in filing appeal sought.
4. Per contra response filed on behalf of non- applicant pleaded therein that applicant has not explained delay in a satisfactory manner. It is pleaded that there are no sufficient causes for condonation of delay. Prayer for dismissal of condonation application sought.
5. We have heard learned Advocates for parties and also perused the entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present application.
1. Whether there are sufficient causes for condonation of delay of 317 (Three hundred seventeen) days in filing appeal as mentioned in memorandum of ground of condonation application?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Applicant filed affidavit Ext.AI in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that due to death of nephew in the family whole family was in disturbed situation and applicant could not file appeal within stipulated period as mentioned under Consumer Protection Act .
8. Non-applicant filed affidavit of Sh. Vikas Garg Ext.NA-I Deputy Manager in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that there are no sufficient causes for condonation of delay of 317 (Three hundred seventeen) days in filing appeal. There is recital in affidavit that applicant did not file appeal within stipulated period as mentioned under Consumer Protection Act .
9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that appeal could not be filed within stipulated period on account of death of nephew in the family is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act. State Commission is of the opinion that non filing of appeal within stipulated period as mentioned under Consumer Protection Act for 317 (Three hundred seventeen) days on account of death of nephew in family is not sufficient cause. State Commission is of the opinion that no
