23 June 2025 Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

This judgment of Sr. Superintendent Of Head Post Office, Uttar Pradesh v/s Pooran Chandra Arya outlines the dismissal of a Revision Petition due to a significant delay in filing. The petition was submitted 117 days beyond the stipulated 90-day period allowed for such filings before the Commission.

The petitioner, a Central Government department, sought condonation of this delay, citing that the required documents had to go through multiple stages of approval and review, which is inherently time-consuming. However, the Commission found this explanation insufficient to warrant condoning the delay.

The decision emphasizes that granting such condonation in a Consumer Complaint matter would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, which mandates time-bound adjudication. The Commission explicitly stated that condoning delays beyond a reasonable period without sufficient cause goes against the spirit and letter of the Act.

The Commission relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support its decision:

• Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011): This ruling highlights that the special period of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act is designed for expeditious adjudication, and entertaining highly belated petitions would undermine this objective.
• Basavraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (2013): This judgment defines "sufficient cause" as a reason for which the party cannot be blamed, emphasizing that the party should not have acted negligently, lacked bona fide intent, or remained inactive. It also firmly states that courts cannot extend limitation periods on equitable grounds, reiterating the maxim "dura lex sed lex" (the law is hard, but it is the law).
• Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman (2022): This case reinforces the principle that if a delay is not properly explained and there are no merits in the condonation application, it should be dismissed, as condoning such a delay would reward negligence.
• Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2014): This ruling reiterates that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, even if it harshly affects a party, as courts lack the power to extend limitation periods on equitable grounds.

In light of these precedents and a careful analysis of the condonation application, the Commission concluded that no sufficient cause was provided or argued for the delay. Consequently, the Revision Petition was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986