No Condonation of Delay for Petty Consumer Dispute, Court Affirms Limitation Law.
12 June 2025
Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights
The dismissal of a revision petition filed by the revisionists/opposite parties against an order from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petition was filed with a significant delay of 405 days beyond the prescribed 90-day period.
The original complaint, filed by the respondent/complainant, was allowed by the District Forum, which directed the revisionists to pay Rs. 11,040/-, along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- for litigation charges.
The counsel for the revisionists sought condonation of the delay, citing that the certified copy of the order was received by the Division Office, and the file was sent for legal opinion to a Standing Counsel who failed to respond.
However, the commission found these reasons unconvincing, especially given the petty amount involved and the presence of concurrent findings by lower forums. The commission heavily relied on Supreme Court precedents that discourage frivolous appeals for small amounts and emphasize the need for government agencies to resolve disputes efficiently.
Furthermore, the commission stressed that condoning such a significant delay in a consumer dispute would defeat the purpose and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, which mandates time-bound resolution. Citing various Supreme Court judgments, the commission reiterated that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, and courts cannot extend periods of limitation on equitable grounds, even if it causes hardship.
Consequently, finding no sufficient ground for condoning the delay, the revision petition was dismissed in limine.