Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Ujala Salt Works Pvt. Ltd v. Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd

Ujala Salt Works Pvt. Ltd v. Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd

(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)

First Appeal No. 647/2012 | 05-11-2012

This appeal has been filed with a delay of 359 days which is over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing appeal. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a special period of limitation has -2- been provided to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken. The inordinate delay of 359 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. The only reason given for -1- condonation of delay is that due to heavy loss and ignorance of law regarding period of limitation the appeal could not be filed within time. We are not satisfied with the cause shown for condonation of delay. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Delay of each day has not been explained. Inordinate delay of almost one year i.e. 359 days cannot be condoned on flimsy ground. Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has held Okhla Industrial Development Authority that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained . Relevant observations are as under:

It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for -3- condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.
The inordinate delay of 359 days cannot be condoned. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed as a consequence thereof appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. ......................J ASHOK BHAN PRESIDENT ...................... VINEETA RAI MEMBER

Advocate List
Bench
  • MR. ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
  • MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
Eq Citations
  • LQ/NCDRC/2012/3747
Head Note

1. Consumer Protection — Appeal — Condonation of delay — Limitation — Delay of 359 days in filing appeal — Held, cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause — Delay of each day has not been explained — Inordinate delay of almost one year i.e. 359 days cannot be condoned on flimsy ground — Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal, (2011) 4 SCC 24, has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained