409-Day Delay Fatal: Consumer Court Dismisses Revision Petition, Emphasizing Timeliness.


09 December 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a stern reminder of the importance of adhering to statutory timelines, a consumer court has dismissed a revision petition filed with a significant delay of 409 days. The decision underscores the court's commitment to the expeditious resolution of consumer disputes, rejecting explanations deemed "routine" and "inadequate."

The petitioner, seeking to challenge an order passed by the State Commission, attributed the delay to internal bureaucratic processes, including the need to gather financial implications, seek legal opinions, and obtain approvals. However, the court found these reasons insufficient to justify the substantial delay.


 

 

Under the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, a revision petition must be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. In this case, while the order was passed on June 23, 2023, the 90-day period commenced from July 4, 2023, when the petitioner received the order. The deadline expired on October 2, 2023, yet the petition was filed only on November 14, 2024, resulting in a 409-day delay.

The court referenced a series of Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that "sufficient cause" for delay must demonstrate a lack of negligence and bona fide intent. The petitioner must provide a satisfactory explanation for each day of delay, proving they acted with reasonable diligence. The court cited the principle that consumer protection law is designed for summary procedures, and delays defeat the purpose of expeditious adjudication.

Specifically, the court highlighted the Supreme Court's stance in cases like Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. and Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, which stipulate that even if sufficient cause is shown, the court retains discretionary power to condone the delay, considering all relevant facts, including the party's diligence.

The court also pointed out that the Supreme Court, in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, has stressed that special periods of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act must be strictly adhered to.

In this instance, the court found the petitioner's explanations to be "routine in nature" and lacking in specific details to justify the prolonged delay. The court noted that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for each day of delay, as required by law.

The decision serves as a powerful message to litigants: internal procedural delays and bureaucratic hurdles do not automatically constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning significant delays. The court reinforced the necessity of timely action in consumer disputes, prioritizing the efficient resolution of grievances and upholding the statutory timelines. The application seeking condonation of delay was disallowed and the revision petition was dismissed.