National Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) expressed that, when a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be scrupulously applied, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty.
Instant revision petition had been filed by the complainant under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata.
State commission had rejected the application seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition and consequently summarily dismissed the Revision Petition.
Whether the State Commission was justified in declining to condone the delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition before it or not?
Analysis and Decision
Commission expressed that it is trite law that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour.
In the present matter, petitioner failed to make out any cause, much less a ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition before the State Commission and the State Commission for the reasons recorded in the Impugned Order was justified in declining to condone the delay.
Hence, the present revision petition was dismissed.[Pallab Mohan Chakraborti v. Debayan Ganguly, Revision Petition No. 2447 of 2018, decided on 22-2-2022]
Advocates before the Commission:
Petitioner in Person
For the respondent: Ms. Pooja Shukla, Advocate
Mr. Surojit Gangopadhyay, Advocate Ms. Chitralekha Das, Advocate