Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘National Commission’) and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘State Commission’) against the Railway Authorities due to delay in filing their appeal, a Single Bench of Ravindra Dudeja, J., dismissed the petition holding that the explanation offered by the Railway Authorities depicted their casual approach that was unmindful of the law despite being aware of its provisions and that the impugned orders did not reflect complete lack of jurisdiction or perversity, thus, they could not be interfered with under Article 227.
Background
The complainant-respondent was travelling via a train when an unidentified individual entered the coach, snatched the complainant’s purse, and jumped out of the moving train. She claimed that the Travelling Ticket Examiner (‘TTE’)/ Railway Staff carelessly left the door of the coach open. Thus, there was negligence and deficiency of service by the Railway Authorities since it was their duty to provide a safe, secure, and comfortable journey as well as safety and security of the luggage of the passengers. Thus, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘District Commission’) against the Railway Authorities.
The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Railway Authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 6,05,000, compensation/damages of Rs. 20,000, and a cost of Rs.5,000 within 30 days. The Railway Authorities challenged the order of the District Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’) along with an application for condonation of delay, but the State Commission dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the Railway Authorities filed a revision petition before the National Commission, but that too was rejected vide the impugned order.
Analysis
The Court stated that according to Section 15 of the Act, the period for filing an appeal to the State Commission was 30 days from the date of the impugned order. However, the State Commission could entertain an appeal even after the expiry of 30 days, provided sufficient cause for not filing it within time was shown.
Noting that the order of the District Commission was passed on 12-07-2023 and the appeal was filed on 28-11-2023, the Court stated that it was obvious that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time period.
Regarding the contention that the certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission was obtained on 15-09-2023, the Court noted that in Para 19 of the State Commission’s order, it was recorded that the District Commission’s order was received by the Railway Authorities on 25-08-2023 and this date was mentioned by the Railway Authorities itself in their application filed before the State Commission. The period of limitation began from the date of receipt of the aforementioned certified copy, i.e., 25-08-2023 thus, there was a delay of 64 days in filing the appeal. The Court further noted that according to the State Commission, no proper explanation was offered for the delay by the Railway Authorities. Thus, the State Commission concluded that the Railway Authorities miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone the delay.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that consideration to condone could be made only if there was a reasonable explanation and not merely because the appellant was a Government body where procedural and bureaucratic delays were well known. The Court further held that the explanation offered by the Railway Authorities depicted a casual approach that was unmindful of the law despite being aware of its provisions.
The Court said that the State Commission, while exercising its discretionary power, after considering the condonation of delay application and all the facts and circumstances of the case, did not find it a fit case for condonation of delay, and such order was affirmed in revision by the National Commission.
The Court held that the exercise of discretionary powers while refusing to condone the delay could not be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution unless the order showed a complete lack of jurisdiction or perversity. In this regard, the Court referred to Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181 and Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97.
Stating the aforesaid, the Court held that the impugned order passed by the National Commission and State Commission did not reflect a complete lack of jurisdiction or perversity.
Thus, the petition was dismissed.
[General Manager, Northern Railways v. Harleen Kaur, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 222, decided on 20-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Senior Panel Counsel Anushkaa Arora
For the respondent: Siddhant Rai Sethi, Sahib Gurdeep Singh, Mayank Gupta and Kaustubh Singh
Buy Constitution of India HERE
