Court Stands Firm: Consumer Petition Dismissed for Unjustified Delay.


09 December 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

In a firm stance against procedural laxity, a consumer court has dismissed a revision petition filed with an egregious delay of 468 days, reinforcing the imperative of timely adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act. The court's decision underscores the principle that negligence and a lack of diligent follow-up cannot serve as valid grounds for condoning substantial delays.

The petitioner sought to challenge concurrent orders from both the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Prayagraj District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had granted reliefs to the respondent/complainant. However, the petitioner's appeal before the State Commission had already been dismissed due to the persistent failure to rectify procedural defects, despite numerous opportunities.


 

 

The revision petition, filed far beyond the statutory 90-day limitation period, was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner's counsel claimed ignorance of the State Commission's disposal until receiving an execution notice, a contention the court deemed "utterly inconceivable." The court highlighted the petitioner's own role in filing the appeal and the absence of any supporting evidence for the alleged lack of awareness.

Furthermore, the petitioner's argument that their counsel failed to adequately follow up on the appeal was also rejected. The court emphasized that the counsel's negligence, being appointed by the petitioner, could not absolve the petitioner of responsibility.

The court reiterated the fundamental purpose of the Consumer Protection Act: to provide swift and efficient redressal of consumer grievances. Allowing significant delays without sufficient cause would directly undermine this objective.

Drawing upon established legal precedents, the court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, which stressed the importance of adhering to the special limitation periods prescribed under the Act. The court also referenced Basavraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, emphasizing that "sufficient cause" must demonstrate a lack of negligence and bona fide intent.

The court further highlighted the Supreme Court's rulings in Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman and Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., underscoring the principle that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, even if it causes hardship. The court emphasized that inconvenience is not a decisive factor in interpreting statutory provisions.

The court concluded that the petitioner had failed to provide a "sufficient cause" for the inordinate delay. The explanations offered were deemed inadequate, and the petitioner's negligence and inaction were deemed unacceptable.

This decision serves as a stark reminder to litigants of the importance of diligence and adherence to statutory timelines. The court's firm stance reinforces the integrity of the consumer protection framework and ensures that consumer disputes are resolved expeditiously, as intended by the legislature.


  Consumer Protection Act, 1986