Order Name: Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Abhinav Sharma
Case No.: A. E. . No. 8/2024
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently ruled against Parsvnath Developers in a case involving an appeal delay. The NCDRC bench, consisting of Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker, stated that any request for delay condonation can’t be approved without a satisfactory reason.
The case revolved around a 10-day delay in filing an appeal, although the Registry noted a longer delay of 39 days. The complainant claimed that the delay occurred because the order wasn’t uploaded on the official website, and they only became aware of it upon receiving the certified copy.
Further, the complainant explained that the complete file was received from the local counsel and then handed over to their advocate, which caused the delay. However, the state commission found this explanation unsatisfactory and unsupported by evidence. They noted that the complainant was represented at all proceedings and the claim that the orders weren’t upheld was rejected. The commission concluded that the delay was a deliberate attempt to stall the order’s enforcement and the given reason was insufficient.
The complainant later filed an appeal against this order of the State Commission before the National Commission.
The National Commission observed that the complainant failed to provide enough reasons to justify the delay. They pointed out the Supreme Court’s stance on the rigorous application of the law of limitation, regardless of how harshly it may impact a party. The complainant was found to lack diligence and failed to give adequate reasons for not filing the appeal within the mandated time.
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment in R.B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, the commission stated that each case needs to be scrutinized to determine if the delay is justified and whether the party has acted with due diligence. The court maintained that showing a satisfactory cause is a precondition for condoning the delay, but the final decision rests at the court’s discretion based on the facts.
The commission reiterated the Supreme Court’s definition of ‘sufficient cause’ from Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer. It is a reason that doesn’t place blame on the party for their absence and requires action without negligence or lack of bona fides. The court must ensure that the delay explanation is satisfactory and not a smokescreen for a hidden agenda.
The commission emphasized that the objective of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act is to expedite the resolution of consumer disputes and not to prolong them through litigation. In this case, the reason for condoning the delay was insufficient and seemed to be an attempt to stall the State Commission’s order.
Consequently, the commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the State Commission’s order.
The key takeaway from this judgment is the importance of timely action and the provision of valid reasons for any delay in legal proceedings. Any attempt to delay could be seen as a tactical move and may not be condoned.
