The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) rejected a First Appeal (FA) against an order of the Delhi State Consumer Commission on grounds of unexplained delay of over 1251 days. The dispute of Ashish Gupta Vs Mahesh Chandra Singhal originated in the State Commission's judgment dated 5 March 2019 in Complaint Case No. 48/2015.
Background of the Case:
The appellant only lodged the appeal on 22 August 2024, six years and five months after the initial order. The registry computed a delay of 1967 days, which after factoring the statutory time and relaxations due to Covid-19, was 1251 days.
In justification for the delay, the appellant alleged that he was in judicial custody in relation to an FIR and only learned about the order in May 2022 while in execution proceedings. He further alleged that he never instructed any counsel to appear on his behalf before the State Commission and had not submitted a written statement in the complaint. In his view, the order sheets falsely reflected the presence of counsels on his behalf.
Arguments and Findings:
The respondent replied that the appellant was properly represented during proceedings, as noted in the State Commission's daily orders. These showed that counsels had made appearances and even applied for extensions to file a written statement. The respondent maintained that if the presence of the counsels was unauthorized, the appellant ought to have done something before the Bar Council, which he failed to do.
When the State Commission's original records were checked by NCDRC, it was established that May 2015 and May 2016 orders did mention appearances of the appellant's advocates and noted filing of a vakalatnama. The State Commission, however, subsequently deposed that these crucial documents consisting of the vakalatnama and evidence of the payment of Rs. 3,500 as costs were not found in its records.
In spite of this difference, the Commission observed that the appellant himself had confirmed awareness of the State Commission's order since as early as May 2022. However, rather than filing an appeal, he proceeded to seek execution proceedings through counsel and postponed the appeal until August 2024.
The NCDRC held that judicial custody was no valid reason for inaction, as the appellant was actively seeking legal remedies at that time. Hence, the justification for more than two years of further delay was held to be unconvincing.
Final Order:
The condonation of delay application (IA/14727/2024) was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Registrar of Delhi State Consumer Commission was directed to inquire as to why essential records—like vakalatnamas and evidence of payment of costs—were missing when they were mentioned in the Commission's own orders. Erring officials were directed to be held responsible for this.
The Registrar, NCDRC, was directed to give suitable directions for this inquiry.
Conclusion:
The order makes it clear that the law of limitation has to be enforced strictly and unwarranted long delays cannot be approved without good reasons. While doing so, the NCDRC also pointed out grave failures of records at the State Commission, for which its officers need to be held responsible.
Section 17, Consumer Protection Act - 1986
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
