Consumer Case Lost Due to Delay.


04 November 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Law >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A recent office report has highlighted a significant delay of 1013 days in filing a Revision Petition in the matter of Arvind Khandelwal v/s New Okla Industrial Development Authority Through Ceo, Uttar Pradesh, far exceeding the statutory period of 90 days. Even after accounting for the period covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 concerning the Covid-19 pandemic, a delay of approximately one year persists.

Further scrutiny reveals that while the Petition was e-filed on 03.01.2022, an Application for Condonation of Delay was not submitted until 14.10.2024. This raises concerns that the initial filing was incomplete, effectively resulting in a delay of around three years.


 

 

In the application seeking condonation of this substantial delay, the Petitioner cited the severe health issues of their daughter, who suffered from clinical Psychosis and returned from the U.S. for treatment at VIMHANS starting from 31.10.2018. Additionally, the Petitioner's father was reportedly suffering from nephrosis, kidney ailments, and age-related complications, ultimately passing away on 06.08.2023.

However, the nature of the case as a Consumer Complaint raises serious objections to condoning such an extensive delay. The very essence of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide a mechanism for expeditious resolution of consumer disputes. Allowing delays of this magnitude, without demonstrably sufficient cause, would undermine the Act's fundamental objective and spirit.

This stance finds strong support in the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC). The court explicitly stated that when considering applications for condonation of delay in consumer matters, the special limitation period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, must be kept in mind. Entertaining highly belated petitions would defeat the purpose of swift adjudication of consumer disputes.

Further reinforcing this principle is the Hon’ble Supreme Court's observation in Basavraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510. The court elucidated that "sufficient cause" implies a reason for absence that is beyond the defendant's control. It necessitates demonstrating that the party was not negligent, acted in good faith, and was diligent in pursuing their case. The court emphasized that unless a satisfactory explanation is provided, condonation of delay should not be granted. A mistake must be bona fide and not a mere tactic to conceal an ulterior motive. The court reiterated the unwavering application of the law of limitation, even if it causes hardship, citing the legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" – the law is hard, but it is the law.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054- 2055/2022, decided on 25.02.2022, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that if a delay is not properly explained and the condonation application lacks merit, it should be dismissed outright. Condoning delay in such circumstances would reward a party's failure to act diligently.

Similarly, in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2014 (11) SCC 351, the significance of limitation was highlighted, referencing the maxim "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium" (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). The court emphasized that while limitation rules aim to ensure legal remedies are available for a fixed period, courts cannot extend this period on equitable grounds if no reasonable explanation for the delay is provided.

Based on the aforementioned legal principles and a careful examination of the application for condonation of delay, the decision has been made not to condone the substantial delay in filing the Revision Petition. The reasons provided in the application and argued by the Petitioner's counsel have been deemed insufficient to justify such an inordinate lapse of time.

Consequently, the Revision Petition stands dismissed as being barred by limitation, underscoring the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act for the timely resolution of consumer grievances.


Consumer Protection Act, 1986