Case Note & Summary
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a second appeal filed by SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. against an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, due to a 399-day delay in filing. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining that the disputed claim exceeded Rs. 5 lakhs, requiring handling by the Head Office in Mumbai. The Regional Team forwarded documents on 09.07.2024, but relevant personnel left employment on 05.08.2024, causing delays in processing. A replacement was eventually found, and the legal department sought an opinion in May 2025. The file was sent for translation as substantial records were in vernacular language, and translated documents were available on 04.06.2025. Counsel gave an opinion on 23.06.2025 recommending a writ petition, which was filed on 08.07.2025 before the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 11.07.2025, holding that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal before the NCDRC under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and granted liberty to approach the Commission within two weeks. The NCDRC considered the application and found that the reasons advanced were not rational, reasonable, or realistic, and that the petitioner dealt with the case in a routine and casual manner. The Commission relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121, which held that the provision for condonation of delay is peremptory in nature and requires sufficient cause for each day of delay. The Commission concluded that the delay was not sufficiently explained and dismissed the application for condonation, consequently dismissing the second appeal as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 51, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - The petitioner sought condonation of 399 days delay in filing second appeal citing internal administrative delays, employee turnover, and translation issues - The Commission held that the reasons advanced were not rational, reasonable, or realistic and that the petitioner dealt with the case in a routine and casual manner - Held that the delay cannot be condoned as the explanation does not constitute sufficient cause (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the 399-day delay in filing the second appeal should be condoned on the grounds of internal administrative delays and employee turnover.
Final Decision
The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause for each day of delay
- internal administrative delays not sufficient
- casual approach not acceptable
