The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench, which included Mr. Subhash Chandra as a member and Mr. C. Vishwanath as the presiding member, made the observation on December 26 that the excuse for the delay cannot be asserted as a matter of right and must be justified for each day of the delay. When dismissing a revision case brought under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 challenging the decision of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the bench made this observation. The state commission had noted that the petitioner, who had any justification for the delay and had no legitimate claims to make, was ineligible for this Commission's discretionary indulgence.

The bench noted that the state panel had denied the appeal on identical grounds and that there had been a delay in submitting the appeal. It was further stated that the allowance of delay under The Limitation Act, 1963 must be sufficiently justified for each day of delay and cannot be asserted as a matter of right in light of the established position of law. The bench took note of the aforementioned and cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962.

The national commission also cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24, and highlighted that it is also a well-established legal principle that every delay must be justified. The aforementioned case law also outlines the fundamental standard to assess whether the delay is reasonable or if the party has been acting diligently. The National Commission also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. Okhla Industrial Development Authority and highlighted that when handling applications for the condonation of delay, it is important to keep in mind the peculiar nature of the Consumer Protection Act.

The panel stated that the failure to provide a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay prevented the State Commission from tolerating the delay in submitting the appeal. Therefore, the contested order is not unlawful, flawed, or perverse. Therefore, it is determined that the current revision petition has no validity and it is rejected as a result. 

According to the complainant/respondent, they gave an advance of Rs. 40,000 and claimed to have purchased 65.30 grammes of gold from the other party for Rs. 1,84,677. The other party consented to produce the aforementioned items within one and a half months, after which the complainant was required to pay the remaining sum to the other party. Furthermore, it was claimed that the complainant paid Rs. 1,38,000, leaving a balance of Rs. 46,677 that was still owed. Despite being willing to pay the remaining balance, the complainant claimed that the other party had not prepared the aforementioned ornaments. 

The complaint addressed the Srikakulam district forum in this regard. The district forum accepted the complaint, ordered the jeweller to supply the specified jewellery, or else reimburse the complainant for their payment, and noted:

“In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to deliver the gold ornaments weight of 65.330 grams of 916 purity on receipt of balance amount of Rs.46,677/- or to repay the paid amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.07.2014 to till the date of repayment within one month to the complainant or else, the complainant is entitled to get the paid amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 01.07.2014 to till the date of repayment. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.40,000/- within one month, towards mental agony, pain and sufferings, with litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- in which Rs.1000/- is included as Advocate fee.”

Case: SOUDHARYA JEWLLERS V. PAIDI JAGANADHA RAO
Citation: REVISION PETITION NO. 1429 OF 2016

Link: http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/search.do?method=loadSearchPub