Proving Sufficient Cause Does Not Automatically Entitle Condonation Of Delay

Summary:

[1]This case involves a Revision Petition filed by the Tahsildar Taluk Office against M. Selvam before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The petition was delayed by 349 days, and no application for condonation of the delay was submitted. The court examined whether the delay was justified, ultimately deciding that the reasons provided were insufficient and dismissing the petition.

Facts:

• The Petitioner, Tahsildar Taluk Office, challenged the order dated 16.09.2022 issued by the State Commission Tamil Nadu. The order was related to a consumer dispute where the State Commission’s decision was being contested.
• The Petitioner was required to file the Revision Petition within 90 days of receiving the certified copy of the Impugned Order. The limitation period commenced on 16.09.2022 and expired on 14.12.2022. However, the Revision Petition was filed on 29.11.2023, resulting in a delay of 349 days.
• The Petitioner attributed the delay to the retirement and transfer of officers responsible for handling the case, which led to procedural delays.
• No application for the condonation of delay was filed by the Petitioner. The case was reviewed to determine whether the delay could be justified under legal standards for sufficient cause.

Judgment:

• Delay in Filing and Justification: The petitioner filed Revision Petition No. 2790 of 2023 with a delay of 349 days beyond the stipulated 90-day limitation period prescribed by Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020. The limitation period for filing such a petition commenced from the date of receipt of the impugned order on 16.09.2022, and it lapsed on 14.12.2022. The petition was, however, filed only on 29.11.2023. The petitioner failed to file an application for condonation of this delay or provide adequate justification for it. The learned counsel for the petitioner attributed the delay to the retirement and transfer of officers concerned, but such reasons were deemed insufficient to explain the prolonged delay.
• The Supreme Court’s relied upon its judgment in Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 SC 361, which emphasizes that while sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay, it is not a matter of right but of discretion. The Court will assess whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence and bona fides. Similarly, in RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108, the Court held that proper explanation for delay is essential and that delays should be properly justified. The principle was reinforced in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, which stressed the need for timely adjudication in consumer disputes and discouraged condoning delays in highly belated petitions.
• Adequacy of the Justification: The petitioner’s reasons for delay, such as retirement and transfers, were found to be routine and inadequate. In Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746, the Supreme Court defined “sufficient cause” as a reason beyond the party’s control and requiring a reasonable standard of diligence. The court must evaluate whether the petitioner acted in a negligent manner or lacked bona fides. Furthermore, Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC) highlighted that day-to-day delay must be explained comprehensively. In this case, the reasons provided did not meet the threshold of sufficient cause, as they were neither exceptional nor detailed enough.

Analysis:

The NCDRC emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in consumer protection cases, where expeditious resolution is crucial. The court held that routine administrative changes, such as officer transfers or retirements, do not constitute sufficient grounds for such a significant delay. The judgment underscores the strict application of the limitation period and the need for petitioners to act diligently and with reasonable promptness in filing petitions. This case reaffirms the principle that the judiciary will not condone delays unless justified by exceptional circumstances.

[1] BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Tahsildar Taluk Office Vs. M. Selvam

Revision Petition No. 2790 of 2023 

Judgment dated 2nd July 2024