Case Title: Sher Singh Vs. Manager, The New India Assurance Company
Case Number: R.P. No. 1057/2022
In a recent judgment, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by AVM J. Rajendra, underscored the importance of adhering to deadlines in legal proceedings. The commission emphasized that delays cannot be forgiven without a solid reason, even if other parties have been granted leniency in similar circumstances.
The case in question involved an appeal by the complainant against a District Forum’s order in the State Commission of Punjab. The complainant was seeking forgiveness for a significant delay of 3074 days in submitting their application. The appeal was dismissed as the complainant failed to provide a compelling enough reason to justify their tardiness. Following this, the complainant attempted to get the decision reviewed by the National Commission.
During the appeal, the National Commission noted that for such an extensive delay to be forgiven, the complainant must demonstrate a solid reason for filing the Revision Petition beyond the designated deadline. This notion of “sufficient cause” was clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer. It implies a reason so compelling that the defendant cannot be blamed for their absence. This means that the party must not have acted carelessly, and the circumstances must have justified the delay.
Citing the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane vs. Land Acquisition Officer, the commission emphasized the importance of rigidly enforcing the law of limitation, even if it seems harsh on a particular party. The court has no power to extend the deadline on compassionate grounds. In another case, Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs. & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), the Supreme Court held that a delay should not be forgiven without a valid reason, and relief granted to other parties does not justify leniency in similar cases.
In light of these precedents, the commission stressed that “sufficient cause” means the party must have acted diligently and without negligence. The complainant in this case had delayed their appeal before the State Commission by 3074 days. The initial order of the District Forum was issued, and the complainant had 30 days to file the appeal. However, they filed it much later, with a delay of 3074 days, without providing specific dates or necessary details to justify the delay. This made it impossible for the commission to consider forgiving the delay.
Finding no merit in the Revision Petition, the commission dismissed it.
The takeaway from this judgment is the importance of adhering to deadlines in legal proceedings. Delays can only be forgiven with a solid, justifiable reason, and even then, it’s not guaranteed. Therefore, it is essential to act diligently and without negligence when dealing with legal matters.
