2004 INSC 0239
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                 National Insurance Company Limited

                                                      Vs.

                                            Dilbagh Rai Sharma

                                           C.A.No.1201 of 2004

                                    (Ashok Bhan and H. K. Sema JJ.)

                                                 20.02.2004

                                                JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent-claimant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the District
Forum') under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum allowed the
complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 1, 97, 812/- with interest at the rate of 10%
per annum. The appellants moved an application before the District Forum for recalling its
order dated 3rd December 2001, which was dismissed on 22nd August, 2002. The appellant
thereafter filed an appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union
Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') along with an
application to condone the delay of 102 days. The State Commission declined to condone the
delay and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable being barred by time. Aggrieved by the
order of the State Commission, the appellants filed a revision before the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the National
Commission'), which was dismissed holding that the order passed by the State Commission
did not require any interference. Aggrieved by the orders of the State Commission and the
National Commission, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

3. This Court had issued a limited notice to the respondents on the question as to why the
order under challenge be not set aside and the case be remitted back to the Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, for decision on merits after
condoning the delay.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. In our view, the appellants had made out
a case for condonation of delay and the State Commission erred in declining to condone the
delay and hear the appeal on merits. Consequently, the application filed by the appellants, for
condoning the delay before the State Commission, is allowed. The orders of the State
Commission and the National Commission are set aside. The case is remitted back to the

1  SpotLaw
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, for disposal of the
appeal on merits.

5. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.

2  SpotLaw