Today is fixed for hearing on admission point.

Ld. Lawyer for the complainant is present by filing hzirah and also submitted the fact of the case.

According to the complaint petition (page no-3) it reflects that the last transaction with the complainant and O.P held on dated 30/09/2015. After that complainant made several correspondences with the O.Ps. The last correspondence was made on 05/10/2018. After that on 01/03/2023 the complainant made another to the O.P.  The main cause of action arose on 30/09/2015.

The Cause of Action means the whole of the material facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove in order to succeed Cause of Action consists of a bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in a court of law.

According to the Chapter IV- Sect6on 69 of the consumer protection act 2019 the limitation period is describe as under

(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

             Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO…………………OF 2023 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.15793 OF 2019 AJAY DABRA Appellant(s) Versus PYARE RAM & ORS. …Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO…………………OF 2023 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.15848 OF 2019 AJAY DABRA Appellant(s) Versus SUNDER SINGH & ANR. …Respondent(s) the observations is as under

“An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for  the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. In the present case, this delay has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court”

BASAWARAJ AND ANOTHER VERSUS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER8 WHILE REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FOR LACK OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAS CONCLUDED IN PARAGRAPH 15 AS FOLLOWS:

“The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the 8 (2013) 14 SCC 81 Page 11 of 17 condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

The NCDRC also held that condonation of delay is not an automatic right but requires the person requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of delay and demonstrate a reasonable ground for not approaching the court within the limitation period.

We, also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 (SC) 1612 'Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.' wherein it has been held that 'sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the powers to condone the delay'.

After hearing the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant and on going through the materials on record it needs to be mentioned, that the cause of action arose sometime in the year 2015 to 2018, but the complainant failed to file any case within the stipulated period of two (2) years, which is well before the onset of the Pandemic period. Therefore, the complainant cannot claim the excuse of Lock-down, for the Pandemic period, as a hindrance to filing this case. This case is badly delayed by more than Six (6) years and therefore, the same cannot be admitted.                                                                        

That the Consumer Case No. 67/2023 be and same is dismissed on limitation ground. Prayer for admission stands refused. The case thus is disposed of. 

Let a copy be supplied to the complainant free of cost.