Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Tahsildar Taluk Office Vs. M. Selvam
Case No.: R.P. No. 2790/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by AVM J. Rajendra, dealt with a revision petition from the Tehsildar Taluk Office, which was delayed by 349 days. Despite presenting a reason for the delay, the court emphasized that granting an extension is at the court’s discretion.
Background of the Case
The Tehsildar Taluk Office filed the revision petition 349 days late, without an application to excuse this delay. Additionally, the office repeatedly failed to correct procedural errors. The delay was attributed to the retirement and transfer of involved officers, causing procedural setbacks. According to Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, the time limit for filing a revision petition is ninety days from receiving the certified order copy. Here, the State Commission of Tamil Nadu had issued the order, and the petition was filed well past this deadline.
Court’s Observations
The National Commission referred to several precedents to make its decision:
- Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.: Highlighted that even with a valid reason, granting a delay extension is the court’s decision, considering all relevant facts.
- RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari: Stressed that the court must check if the delay is adequately explained and if the petitioner showed reasonable diligence.
- Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority: Pointed out that delays in consumer cases could undermine quick resolution if excessively late appeals or revisions are allowed.
- Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer: Explained that "sufficient cause" must be more than just an excuse for negligence.
Based on these precedents, the Commission concluded that the reasons given by the petitioner—retirement and transfers of officers—were routine and not sufficient to justify the delay. Therefore, the request for an extension of the 349-day delay was denied.
Takeaway
This judgment reaffirms the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in consumer cases. Courts can deny extensions even if a reason is provided, especially if the delay disrupts the swift resolution of disputes. Always ensure that procedural deadlines are strictly followed to avoid such setbacks.
