1

Consumer Protection Digest

On
Law of Limitation
Acknowledgement - Cause of action arose in 1985 - Liability was acknowledged in 1991 - Complaint filed in
1992 held to be within time - 1999(2 C!C "#5 $%C%
&Complaint within limitation from the date of acknowledgement of claim cannot be dismissed as time barred from
date of cause of action - 1998(1 C!C '9( )r%
--*nsurance claim filed within limitation from date of acknowledgement - Claim held to be within time - 2++1(1
C!C "" !b%
&,ime of limitation e-pired - $ubse.uent writing a letter on the sub/ect does not constitute an acknowledgement -
2+++(2 C!C #'2 Chd%
Advocates fault - Complaint alongwith application for condonation of delay dismissed 0 1resh complaint on
allegation of mismanagement on part of ad2ocate is not maintainable - 2+1+(2 C!C "9( 3%C%
Appeal as time barred - 4ndue delay of #91 days in filing of appeal 0 3o cause of delay e-plained 0 5rder of
$tate Commission dismissing appeal as time barred upheld - 2+1+(' C!C 1(1 3%C%
Appeal by post - Limitation - 6ate of posting by registered post should be considered the date of filing of
appeal under $ection 15 of the 7ct - 199' C!C '2 )r%
Appeal presentation - 1or the purpose of limitation date of presentation and not date of registration of appeal
should be taken into consideration - 1998(2 C!C 121 8%!%
Bonds - !eriod of three years limitation would start when cause of action by denial of payment of bonds had
accrued - 2++((1 C!C 599 3%C%
Carriage of oods by !ea Act - Complaint against 5! for non deli2ery of consignment in time 0
Complaint cannot be dismissed on ground that limitation is not filed within one year prescribed by Carriage of 9oods by
$ea 7ct: 1925 - 2++9(' C!C '(8 $%C%
Cause of action 0 Cause of action arises from date of repudiation of claim 0 !etition not barred by
limitation 0 2+1+(1 C!C 282 3%C%
--Cause of action arose on (%#%199" 0 Complaint filed on 5%5%199( 0 3o satisfactory reason gi2en for delay
0 Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2++9(2 C!C 1 $%C%
&Cause of action arose before enforcement of 7ct: 199' - Limitation for filing complaint is ' years from cause of
action - 1998(1 C!C 12 ;erala
--Cause of action arose in 199( 0 Complaint filed in 2++5 0 Complaint rightly dismissed as barred by
limitation 0 8erely writing a letter by !anchayat does not create fresh cause of action 0 2++9(1 C!C 9# 3%C%
Certified copy 0 6elay by department 0 !etitioner could not file appeal against the *mpugned 5rder 0 !roper
court fee not affi-ed 0 6efecti2e application filed 0 6eficiency in ser2ice not pro2ed 0 3ot entitled relief - 2+1+(' C!C
588 3%C%
Civil suit"consumer proceedings 0 Consumer proceedings cannot be said to be ci2il suit for the purpose of
limitation - 2+1+(' C!C '(' 3%C%
Cock and bull story - 7 cock and bull story was narrated for condonation of delay by appellant 0 <elief
declined - 2+1+(' C!C 88 )%!%
Complaint 0 Complaint alongwith application for condonation of delay dismissed 0 1resh complaint on
allegation of mismanagement on part of ad2ocate is not maintainable - 2+1+(2 C!C "9( 3%C%
Computation of limitation - *ncident gi2ing rise to claim occurred on 22%%2++2 but claim was repudiated on
22%2%2++( wherefrom limitation period should ha2e been computed 0 Complaint filed on %1+%2++9 held to be time barred -
2+1+(' C!C 2#" 3%C%
Concurrent finding - 3o con2incing: e2idence produced to challenge a concurrent finding of 1ora below who
dismissed complaint as time barred 0 7ppeal dismissed - 2+1+(2 C!C 51 3%C%
2
Condonation of delay - 7bnormal delay of 2## days in filing appeal 0 9round of alleged illness found
unsatisfactory 0 Condonation of delay declined 0 2+1+(1 C!C 2+5 3%C%
--7dministrati2e delay can be condoned if delay in filing appeal is e-plained with con2incing reason - Secretary,
A.P.P.S.C. 2% Shaik Khadervalli, 199"(2 C!C 5'( 7%!%
&7fter deducting time spent in earlier proceedings complaint was still delayed by '+8 days - Law of limitation to
be applied with all its rigour - Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2++8(' C!C 11" 4ttarakhand
&7ilment of appellant=s wife not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay as appeal could be filed by registered
post - Om Parkash Prasad 2% National Insurance Co. Ltd.: 199#(1 C!C 2"( >ihar
&7llotment of flat in 1998 challenged in 2++2 without any application of condonation of delay - Condonation of
delay on oral re.uest un/ustified - P.U..A. 2% !as"inder Sin#h: 2++#(2 C!C #8# 3%C%
&7n applicant of loan to bank is not a consumer as there is no consideration paid for rendering any ser2ice -
$ana#er, UCO %ank 2% Suvas Chandra $ohanty, 199#(2 C!C '(" 5rissa
&7n application for condonation for ' days delay not to be dismissed on the ground that no affida2it was filed with
the application - &ead"ay 'inance and Investment Com(any Ltd. 2% Sarla evi, 1995(2 C!C #85 4%!%
&7ppeal against order of 6istrict 1orum filed after long delay without sufficient ground for condonation of delay -
*nterference in re2ision declined - Citi)ank N. A. 2% S.N. Ahmed, 2++8(1 C!C "5+ 3%C%
&7ppeal delayed as official ha2ing copy of impugned order was on medical lea2e - 9round is sufficient to condone
the delay - State o* Pun+a) throu#h Administrator 2% Kasturi Lal, 1998(2 C!C "'# !b%
--7ppeal delayed by si- months without e-plaining delay 0 7ppeal dismissed as barred by limitation - 2++9(1 C!C
2+9 3%C%
&7ppeal delayed due to counsel=s negligence - 6elay in filing of appeal condoned - 199((2 C!C 299 !b%
&7ppeal filed after delay of 5' days without any e-planation for delay - 7ppeal rightly dismissed as time barred -
irector, ,ele#ra(h ,ra**ic 2% N. Ananda Kumar, 1999(1 C!C 29' 7%!%
--7ppeal filed with delay of '"8 days 0 ,o say that papers of file were misplaced by her counsel is not a con2incing
reason 0 7ppeal rightly dismissed as time barred 0 5rder upheld 0 2+11(1 C!C 22" 3%C%
--7ppeal filed on 2#%9%2++1 against impugned order dated 1#%2%9# - Cause of delay not duly e-plained -
Condonation of delay dis-allowed - 2++'(1 C!C 11 3%C%
&7ppellant could not pro2ed that delay of 1+' days was due to time spent in attending his bed-ridden father 0
Condonation of delay denied - 2++9(1 C!C 5+9 3%C%
&7ppellant fully aware of impugned order - !lea of late deli2ery of copy of order not acceptable for condonation of
delay - Sasan#i -n#ineer .%om./ Pvt. Ltd. 2% A+ay Ashok $ahadik: 2++#(2 C!C 1++ 3%C%
&7pplication for condonation of delay of one year without any con2incing reason - 7ppeal rightly dismissed as
time barred - Krishan Pradhan 2% ,ata -n#ineerin# 0 Locomotive Co. Ltd., 2++'(2 C!C 5++ 3%C%
&72erment made on 2ague grounds for condonation of delay - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred - 1a+ Kaur 2%
&ar"inder Sin#h: 2++"(1 C!C 581 !b%
&72erment that copy of order was deli2ered to complainant=s mother is not sufficient reason for condonation of
delay - Sunil Kumar Chadda 2% Air India Ltd., 2++"(1 C!C 1(# !b%
-->asic facilities not pro2ided 0 !ossession of plot not deli2ered 0 Complaint allowed by 6istrict 1orum 0 7ppeal
filed with delay of 181 days 0 6elay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause 0 3ot entitled relief - 2+1+(' C!C '51
3%C%
&>enefit of time spent in wrong court should be gi2en to complainant - 6elay condoned - 2++8(1 C!C 22 )r%
&Cause of 5' days delay gi2en as time spent in legal consultation - Condonation declined - 2++'(1 C!C 255 Chd%
&Cause of action arose on '%1%1998 - Complaint filed on 2#%#%2+++ without e-plaining delay - Complaint rightly
dismissed as time barred - 2++'(1 C!C 2+ 3%C%
&Cause of delay in filing of re2iew application due to wrong ad2ice - 9round held not sufficient - !indal Photo
'ilms Ltd. 2% Smt. Kiran Sin#la, 2++'(1 C!C 55( !b%
&Complaint against doctor filed with the delay of ( years - !etition dismissed as time barred - 1a+esh Kumar 2% r.
.P. %akshi: 2++1(2 C!C 2#2 3%C%
&Complaint filed after 2 years without gi2ing any sufficient reason for delay 0 Complaint dismissed as time barred
- 2++9(1 C!C 599 )r%
&Condonation of delay merely on oral re.uest not proper - 5rder of condoning delay without sufficient cause set
aside - Pun+a) Ur)an evelo(ment Authority 2% S. 2ur+inder Sin#h, 2++"(2 C!C 5"# 3%C%
&Condonation of delay of 199 days in filing appeal declined in discretionary powers by 3%C% - *nterference with
order under 7rticle 1'# unwarranted - A 2% Krishan Lal Nandrayo#, 2++#(2 C!C #59 $%C%
'
&Contradictory pleas taken by the appellant and not coming to court with clean hands 0 Condonation of
delay declined - 2++9(2 C!C 5#' )%!%
&Copy of order misplaced by 7d2ocate - 6elay of 19# days cannot be condoned as reason is not sufficient - 1an)ir
Sin#h Chaudhary 2% ,elecom istrict $ana#er, 2++"(2 C!C 225 3%C%
--Copy of order misplaced by 7d2ocate - <eason not sufficient for condonation of delay - $ana#in# irector,
$aruti Udyo# Limited 2% 1a+esh $ittal: 2++"(2 C!C '"5 Chd%
&Copy of order misplaced in the office of $tatutory body - 3o ground for condonation of delay - Ludhiana
Im(rovement ,rust 2% Kasturi Lal Chadha: 1998(2 C!C 551 !b%
&Copy of order sent to wrong address - ,ime to be e-cluded - 6elay condoned - 1998(2 C!C 89 6elhi
&Copy of order sent with endorsement number and date of despatch - 8ere allegation of non-receipt of copy does
not gi2e any right of condonation of delay - 2++#(2 C!C 292 3%C%
--Courts are e-pected to condone delay to do substantial /ustice unless e-planation found to be malafide - -state
$ana#er 2u+arat &ousin# %oard 2% 1a+kot 2rahak Suraksha Samiti, 2++'(1 C!C 5(# 9u/%
&6elay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity and on mere asking - 2++"(2 C!C ##+ Chd%
&6elay cannot be condoned on the grounds which are found to be 2ague - 2++'(1 C!C 18' !b%
&6elay cannot be condoned on 2ague grounds - 199#(2 C!C "9( !b%
&6elay cannot be condoned that time was spent in seeking legal opinion - 2++'(2 C!C "85 !b%
&6elay cannot be condoned where applicant has committed a gross negligence in prosecution of his case -
$ubstantial /ustice to both parties should be aim of the court - 2++#(2 C!C #+( )%!%
&6elay due to seeking of legal opinion cannot be condoned as it is not sufficient cause - 2++2(1 C!C '"+ Chd%
&6elay due to time spent in translation of document from 2ernacular to ?nglish is not a sufficient ground - 2++'(1
C!C 11+ 3%C%
&6elay in coordination between departments is not a sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing appeal -
2eneral $ana#er .Northern 1ail"ay/ 2% Anil Kumar Srivastava: 2+++(2 C!C #91 6elhi
&6elay in filing appeal cannot be condoned on the basis of procedural delay - 2++1(1 C!C 5'" 6elhi
&6elay in filing appeal cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause for delay - 2+++(2 C!C "92 6elhi
&6elay in filing appeal due to legal opinion gi2en by 6epartment - <eason for delay not satisfactory - P.S.-.%.
throu#h its Chairman 2% Sukhdev Sin#h, 2++1(2 C!C 2'# !b%
&6elay in filing of appeal due to official process% 3o sufficient reason for condonation of delay - 2++1(2 C!C 2"5
!b%
&6elay in filing of appeal of 12( days - *n sufficiency of funds for engaging a counsel is not a reasonable ground
for condonation - Catvision Products Limited 2% Na#(ur -ntertainment and Ne"s Net"ork, 2++5(1 C!C '5( 3%C%
&6elay in the interest of /ustice should be condone if litigant not adopting delaying tactics - 2++5(1 C!C "+8 Chd%
&6elay not to be condoned without gi2ing sufficient reasons 199((1 C!C 29 Chd%
&6elay of 1 month in filing appeal due to time taken in consultation of )ousing >oard staff - 6elay condoned for
sufficient reason - Avas Ayukt, U.P. Avas -vam 3ikas Parishad 2% r. S.$. Sin#h, 2++1(1 C!C '++ 4%!%
&6elay of 1128 days due to fri2olous ci2il litigation - <eason not sufficient to condone delay - 2++'(2 C!C '"8
3%C%
&6elay of 12 days in filing appeal - 6elay condoned on the ground of sufficient reason - 199#(1 C!C "12 )r%
&6elay of 12 years in filing complaint without sufficient cause for delay 0 Condonation of delay declined
- 2++9(2 C!C "'2 $%C%
&6elay of 12" days in filing re2ision not e-plained with sufficient ground - <e2ision merits dismissal - 2++((1
C!C "(8 3%C%
&6elay of 125 days due to sufficient reasons: became necessary to be condoned for imparting /ustice - 6elay
condoned - &aryana Ur)an evelo(ment Authority 2% %ri# .1etd./ Karan Sin#h, 2++8(2 C!C 2+ )r%
&6elay of 125 days in filing appeal without gi2ing 2alid reason for delay - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred -
2++'(1 C!C '( 3%C%
&6elay of 1" days in filing appeal reason for delay e-plained as time spent in legal opinion - Condonation of delay
declined - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2% $4s. $an#at 1am 0 Sons, 2++'(1 C!C '1" !b%
&6elay of 15 days in filing the appeal unaccompanied by any application or affida2it for condonation - 7ppeal
dismissed - ,he &industan Com(uters Ltd. 2% Amar+eet Paul: 199' C!C 1# !b%
&6elay of 15( days in filing appeal - *llness of one person of appellant company is not sufficient cause for
condonation of delay - 2++'(1 C!C #28 3%C%
&6elay of 1( days in filing appeal - $ufficient cause shown - 6elay ordered to be condoned - 2++((1 C!C #(8
3%C%
"
--6elay of 181 days in filing of appeal - Cause for delay as bifurcation of Central <ailway found to be insufficient -
Union o* India 2% Kamla 3erma, 2++"(1 C!C '15 3%C%
&6elay of 18( days in filing appeal cannot be condoned in absence of satisfactory e-planation - 2++#(2 C!C ""1
3%C%
--6elay of 2+1 days in filing of appeal 0 Condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient cause declined - 2+1+(2
C!C ( 3%C%
--6elay of 2+5 days in filing appeal 0 7ppeal not filed promptly despite warning 0 Condonation of delay declined -
2+1+(' C!C 1(9 3%C%
&6elay of 21' days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay declined in absence of satisfactory reason - 2++#(2
C!C #92 3%C%
&6elay of 2' days in filing appeal - 6elay cannot be condoned on 2ague grounds - 2++'(2 C!C 119 !b%
--6elay of 2"' days in filing of re2ision petition 0 !rocedural delay cannot be taken as a 2alid reason for
condonation of delay - 2+1+(2 C!C '+ 3%C%
&6elay of 28 days due to pendency of writ petition - ,ime spent in writ petition cannot be e-cluded for
condonation of delay - 199#(1 C!C 5'# 3%C%
&6elay of 29 days in filing re2ision - $ufficient reason gi2en for delay - 6elay condoned - 2++"(2 C!C (+" $%C%
&6elay of '+ days in filing appeal not e-plained - Condonation of delay declined - 2++'(1 C!C 1" 3%C%
&6elay of '1+ days in filing in appeal - Condonation of delay on cause of illiteracy declined - Alice $arie 2%
Ar)itrator, Pondicherry Pu)lic Servants Co-o(. Stores: 1998(1 C!C 5 9oa
&6elay of ''2 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay without sufficient reason disallowed - Credit Analysis
0 1esearch Ltd. 2% 2aruda 3is"es"ara 1ao, 2++'(2 C!C "5 3%C%
&6elay of '# days in filing of appeal - !lea of illness not supported by e2idence - 6elay cannot be condoned -
3andana %ansal .$rs./ 2% $4s !anta ,ravels, 2++2(2 C!C 2#+ Chd%
--6elay of '8# days in filing appeal 0 <eason for delay was stated due to fault of lower rank officers 0 Cause for
delay is not sufficient and day-to-day delay must be e-plained - 2+1+(' C!C #+ 3%C%
&6elay of "+ days in filing appeal - Cause of delay gi2en as official consultation in the case - <eason not sufficient
- Condonation declined - P.S.-.%. 2% Sh. $an $ohan Sin#h, 2++2(2 C!C 5#8 !b%
&6elay of "-1@2 in filing appeal une-plained - 6elay not to be condoned - 2++2(2 C!C 5#' !b%
--6elay of "2 days in filing appeal under mistake of fact - 6elay condoned - Andhra %ank 2% 5.$.
,hirunavukkarasu, 199((1 C!C 5" ,%3%
&6elay of ""' days not reasonably e-plained - 7ppeal rightly dismissed as time barred - 2++8(' C!C 55 3%C%
&6elay of ""( days in filing appeal - 5fficial procedure stated to be the cause of delay - Contents of affida2it not
satisfactory - Condonation of delay decline - &aryana Ur)an evelo(ment Authority 2% $rs. Kamlesh Sood, 2++5(2 C!C
##8 Chd%
&6elay of "5" days allegedly due to retirement of concerned officials - $ufficient cause not pro2ed - Condonation
of delay declined - 2++((1 C!C "'9 3%C%
&6elay of "( days in filing of appeal - 8istaken ad2ice of 7d2ocate no ground for condonation of delay -
&industan $otors Ltd. .$4s./ 2% Pun+a) State -lectricity %oard, 1999(1 C!C 92 !b%
&6elay of "(2 days in filing appeal - ,ime spent in writ petition cannot be condoned - 2++2(2 C!C 28# 3%C%
&6elay of "98 days in filing appeal without sufficient cause - 7ppeal barred by time - 2++2(2 C!C 21" Chd%
&6elay of 52" days in filing appeal not reasonably e-plained - Condonation of delay declined - 2++((2 C!C (12
3%C%
&6elay of 5# days in filing appeal - Contention of loss of case file sent through courier not pro2ed - Condonation of
delay declined - Udham Sin#h 2% 2eneral $ana#er, ,elecommunication, 2++1(2 C!C 2"2 !b%
--6elay of 5( days in filing appeal 0 Ahen court is satisfied that matter re.uires consideration on merit 0 6elay in
filing the appeal condoned - 2+1+(' C!C '#' 3%C%
&6elay of 5( days without reasonable cause - Condonation of delay declined - Pun+a) School -ducation %oard 2%
Pal Sin#h: 2++'(2 C!C "#' !b%
&6elay of # months in filing of appeal - <eason for delay allegedly due to official procedure not con2incing -
7ppeal dismissed as time barred - A#ra evelo(ment Authority 2% Smt. Shalendri %a+(ei, 2++8(' C!C 1"9 4%!%
&6elay of #+ days in filing of appeal without application for condonation 0 7ppeal dismissed as time barred -
2++9(1 C!C (+# 3%C%
&6elay of #1 days in filing appeal - 8isplacement of papers of case not sufficient reason for condonation of delay -
$aruti Udyo# Ltd. 2% r. . Su+ana, 2+++(1 C!C 21' 7%!%
5
&6elay of #" days in filing of appeal - >rief misplaced by lawyer - <eason for condonation of delay is /ust and
proper - Charan+it Sin#h 2% ,he -6ecutive -n#ineer, P.S.-.%., 2+++(1 C!C 2' !b%
&6elay of ( years filing insurance claim petition without gi2ing reason for delay - *nsurance claim dismissed as
time barred - 2++2(1 C!C #2( 3%C%
&6elay of (5 days in filing an appeal - 6elay due to departmental process is not a sufficient reason for condonation
of delay - &aryana Ur)an evelo(ment Authority 2% Kir(al Sin#h: 2++#(1 C!C #2 )r%
&6elay of (( days in filing appeal - ,ime spent in official consultation not sufficient ground for condonation -
Pun+a) School -ducation %oard, $ohali 2% &ar(al Sin#h, 2++'(1 C!C 1"( !b%
&6elay of 8 months in filing of appeal 0 6elay cannot be condoned on lame e-cuse 0 2+1+(1 C!C 12"
3%C%
&6elay of 818 days in filing appeal - 7llegation of wrong address cannot be accepted when was duly ser2ed by
substituted ser2ice - 2++'(2 C!C 82 3%C%
&6elay of 9 months in filing of appeal 0 6elay cannot be condoned on 2ague grounds which were found
to be unsatisfactory 0 2+1+(1 C!C #'+ 4%!%
&6elay of about 1'+ days due to pendency of complaint before $tate Commission - *t had no pecuniary /urisdiction
resulting in withdrawal of complainant - 7s original complaint was within limitations: condonation of delay /ustified -
Kohinoor International 2% Intra Shi(, 2++((2 C!C '2" 3%C%
&6elay of eight months in filing re2ision after $L! was allowed to be withdrawn to seek remedy before the
Commission - Condonation of delay rightly declined - 2++((1 C!C #'5 3%C%
&6elay of one day in filing a complaint@appeal - 3o note of <egistry on file about date of actual receipt of
complaint through post - 6elay condoned - 1enu u##al .Smt./ 2% $4s. Carryco Carriers, 1999(1 C!C 2"8 !b%
--6elay of two years in filing a complaint - Cause of action being in continuity condonation of delay /ustified - $d.
Suleman Ansari .$S/ 2% Shankar %handari, 2++5(2 C!C '1' $%C%
&6istrict 1orum not functioning at a rele2ant time - 6elay in filing complaint condoned - 1998(2 C!C 511 !b%
&?ach and e2ery day=s delay should be e-plained with sufficient reason for condonation of delay - Preetinder
Sin#h Lehl 2% Chie* Administrator, Pun+a) Ur)an Plannin# and evelo(ment Authority, 2++"(2 C!C ''' Chd%
&1iling of appeal delayed by 2' days due to negligence of legal department of the !%$%?%>% - 6elay due to official
procedure does not constitute a sufficient reason for condoning delay - 2++1(2 C!C 255 !b%
&1iling of appeal delayed by 5( days - Condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient reason declined - Pun+a)
State -lectricity %oard 2% arshan Sin#h, 2++'(1 C!C 2(# !b%
&)anding o2er of copy of order to third person found to be an after though - 6elay of "5 days in filing appeal
cannot be condoned - Cor(orate Product $ana#er, $.1.'. Ltd. 2% $ehar Sin#h, 2++"(1 C!C 1(8 !b%
&)ea2y work load of counsel is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing an appeal - Pradee( Kumar
2% Assistant 'inance O**icer, elhi 3idyut %oard, 2+++(2 C!C #8( 6elhi
&*gnorance of law of limitation is not sufficient ground - S.1oshan 2% Sai#al Associates, 2++"(2 C!C 19' 6elhi
&*lliterate lady filing claim after three years but immediately after coming to know about e-istence of policy -
Claim cannot be dismissed as barred by time - 2++8(1 C!C '"' Chhattisgarh
&*mpugned order passed in the absence - 6elay in receipt of copy - 7ppeal within '+ days - 6elay condoned -
Chie* $ana#er, UCO %ank 2% 1am 2ovind A#ra"al, 199#(2 C!C '8" >ihar
&Liability for payment of compensation wrongly placed on appellant - Condonation of delay in filing appeal was
granted - State %ank o* India 2% O.N. Kaul: 1995(2 C!C '(5 B%C;%
&Limitation e-pires on a holiday - 7pplication for restoration can be filed on ne-t following day - Arun Kumar
,andon 2% .-.S.U., 1995(1 C!C "29 6elhi
&8%6% was out of station resulting in delay in filing appeal - 3o affida2it of 8%6% produced - <eason for delay not
sufficient - 2.P. 'orests evelo(ment .India/ Ltd. 2% %a)y ,arun minor, 2++1(2 C!C 2"' !b%
&8ere bald statements cannot ser2e the purpose of condonation of delay - ?ach day should be e-plained -
1a+asthan State Insurance and 2.P.'. e(artment 2% 1adhey Shyam 2oyal, 199"(2 C!C #58 <a/%
&8ere report of ;anungo that plot was under litigation is not a satisfactory reason to condone delay of #
years 0 2+1+(1 C!C #85 3%C%
&8isleading Court by deliberate attempt - Condonation of delay declined - 2++"(2 C!C 5' !b%
--3ecessary amount with appeal could not be deposited due to loss in business resulting in delay of appeal - <eason
not sufficient - Condonation of delay declined - Links Pvt. Ltd. 2% Shakeel Ahmed: 2++8(2 C!C ('5 3%C%
&3o affida2it of the 6i2isional 5fficer causing delay in official process: produced - 7ppeal dismissed as time
barred - Oriental Insurance Com(any Ltd. 2% !o#inder Sin#h, $akhan Sin#h, 2++1(2 C!C 2"" !b%
#
&3o 6istrict 1orum constituted by 9o2ernment causing delay in filing the complaint - 6elay deser2es to be
condoned - Union o* India 2% ,arsem 2oel, 1998(1 C!C "5" !b%
&3o particulars or affida2it of the lawyer gi2ing wrong ad2ice about period of appeal was produced - 7ppeal with
delay of 2' days dismissed as time barred - 2++1(2 C!C 2"( !b%
&3o satisfactory e-planation gi2en for delay of si- and half month in filing appeal - Condonation of delay declined
- %ihar State &ousin# Co-o(erative 'ederation Ltd. 2% Sushila evi, 2++#(2 C!C 2+9 3%C%
&3o satisfactory reason gi2en for delay in filing appeal - 7ppeal dismiss as time barred - 2++1(2 C!C 2'9 !b%
&3o sufficient ground gi2en by petitioner for condonation of delay of 19( days in filing re2ision petition - !etition
dismissed as barred by limitation - 2++((1 C!C "'' 3%C%
&5fficial consultation delayed the filing of appeal - 3ot a sufficient cause for condonation of delay - 1995(2 C!C
2'9 3%C%
&5fficial consultation not sufficient cause for condonation of delay - Pun+a) State -lectricity %oard 2% $4s.
Lakshmi Cotton $ills, 2++"(2 C!C 1+8 !b%
&5fficial procedure and fault of ad2ocate gi2en as reason for delay of 2'# days in filing re2ision 0 <eason
not satisfactory - Condonation of delay denied 0 2+1+(1 C!C 15+ 3%C%
--5rder not pronounced in the presence of parties - 6elay should be condoned - 199' C!C ##2 6elhi
&!etition filed with delay of 1"1 days without e-plaining delay with sufficient reason 0 !etition dismissed
as time barred 0 2+1+(1 C!C 2#2 3%C%
&!etitioner pleaded 2ague grounds for condonation of delay of 11# days - Condonation of delay declined - 2++#(2
C!C #'" 3%C%
&!ostal authorities remarked as Dnot claimed intimation gi2enE - 3on ser2ice of notice not pro2ed - 7ppeal with
delay of 22 months rightly dismissed - 2++5(1 C!C '88 8aha%
&!o2erty is no reason for condonation of delay - 2++1(2 C!C 2'8 !b%
&!rayer for condonation of delay of "1( days due to pendency of re2iew petition - 6elay cannot be condoned in the
absence of satisfactory e-planation - 2++#(2 C!C 28" 3%C%
&<eason for delay found to be 2ague - Condonation of delay declined - -kta U((al 2% Asian Lacto Industries Ltd.:
2++"(1 C!C #+" !b%
&<eason for delay of 111 days gi2en that file was mo2ing from table to table 0 <eason for condonation of
delay is not sufficient 0 2++9(' C!C 595 3%C%
&<eason for delay was gi2en that 7d2ocate misplaced the document - Condonation of delay cannot be allowed as
reason is not sufficient - 2++'(2 C!C 2'9 3%C
&<eason for delay was gi2en that copy was misplaced in the house - <eason not sufficient - 2++"(1 C!C 59' !b%
&<eason of delay was gi2en that copy of complaint was not legible - <eason disbelie2ed by concurrent finding -
*nterference in order re2ision declined - L..A. 2% Sh. %.S. Sethi, 2++'(2 C!C 2(9 3%C%
&<eason of illness of ;arta of family found not con2incing for delay in filing of appeal - Condonation of delay
declined as reason was not satisfactory - &aridev Chemicals 2% National Insurance Co. Ltd.: 2++"(1 C!C 1"# Chd%
&<e2ision filed with a delay of 218 days 0 7llegedly counsel did not inform about decision in time 0 ,his
is a usual e-cuse 0 Condonation of delay declined 0 2+1+(1 C!C 2+" 3%C%
&$ufficient cause for delay not pro2ed -Condonation of delay declined - 2++((1 C!C ##9 3%C%
&,he words sufficient cause should recei2e a liberal construction in the matter of condonation of delay - 1995(2
C!C 229 3%C%
&,ime barred appeal filed without any application with affida2it for condonation of delay - <elief declined - P..
3yas $arketin# .P/ Ltd. .$4s./ 2% Smt. Sushma Ka(oor, 2++1(1 C!C '95 8%!%
&,ime spent in appeal filed without certified copy of order - ,ime cannot be included for condonation of delay -
Amar 5heels Pvt. Ltd. 2% Pun+a) State -lectricity %oard: 2++'(2 C!C 125 !b%
&,ime spent in consumer proceedings - >enefit should be gi2en under $ection 1" of Limitation in filing a ci2il suit
- Ashok Leyland 'inance Com(any Ltd. 2% 2okran Sin#h %adauriya, 2++'(2 C!C 1"1 8%!%
&,ime spent in e-ecution petition wrongly filed - Condonation of delay in filing appeal /ustified - 1a#havendra
1ao 2% irector 2eneral, e(artment o* Post: 2++#(2 C!C "5# 3%C%
&,ime spent in legal opinion cannot be sufficient cause for condonation - 2++'(2 C!C "5" Chd%
&,ime spent in re2iew application which was filed after long delay cannot be condoned in filing appeal beyond
limitation - 1am hani Prasad 2% Pra)andhak, U.P. Co-o(. %ank Ltd., 2++1(1 C!C 12 4%!%
&,ime spent in re2iew petition cannot be e-cluded for condonation of delay - 199' C!C "(2 !b%
&,ime spent in re2iew petition filed on wrong ad2ice to illiterate widow - 6elay condoned - 2++8(1 C!C 3%C%
(
&,ime spent in re2iew: cannot be e-cluded - 199' C!C "(1 !b%
&,ime spent in seeking legal opinion from )ead 5ffice for filing appeal is no ground for condonation of delay -
Sterlin# &olidays 1esorts International Ltd. 2% %.1. %hatia, 2++1(2 C!C !b% 2'9
&,ime spent in seeking legal opinion is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay - ivisional -n#ineer,
,ele#ra(h 2% S. K. almia, 199"(2 C!C 2(' >ihar
--,ime spent in wrong Court - ?-tension of time should be granted - 1998(2 C!C 1'+ )r%
&,ime spent wrongly in proceedings against wrong person - 6elay in proceedings against real person should be
condoned - S.C. Se#aram 2% AN7 2rindlays %ank, 1995(1 C!C 2+( ,%3%
&,ime will start to run not from date of order but from date of communication of order - 3ishnath Keser"ani 2%
Luckno" -lectricity Su((ly Undertakin# throu#h its -6ecutive -n#ineer, 2+++(2 C!C 2(# 4%!%
&Fague allegation of misplacement of file in the office: cannot be a ground for condonation of delay - Im(rovement
,rust, Ludhiana 2% Smt. Neelam, 199((1 C!C 1#5 !b%
&Fague ground such as 7dministrati2e procedure pleaded for condonation of delay - 9rounds not sufficient -
%harat San#h, ,hrou#h S. -. 1ail"ay 2% San+eev Sundaram, 2++"(1 C!C #+8 C%9%
&Ahen there is a Dcontinuing wrongE delay should be condoned - 1998(1 C!C 281 9u/%
&Arong legal ad2ise is no ground for condonation of delay - 2++"(2 C!C 9# !b%
&Arong legal notice and administrati2e reasons are not sufficient to condone delay of 2"# days in filing appeal 0
)owe2er: delay is condoned to do /ustice to the appellant 2ictim of wrong decision - 2++9(1 C!C 5++ 3%C%
Condonation on oral re#uest - 7llotment of flat in 1998 challenged in 2++2 without any application of
condonation of delay - Condonation of delay on oral re.uest un/ustified - 2++#(2 C!C #8# 3%C%
Consumer $ 6istrict 1orum awarded huge compensation without deciding the issue of limitation and whether
complainant was a consumer on the basis of any e2idence 0 5rder .uashed 0 Case remanded for fresh decision - 2++9(2
C!C "25 $%C%
Continuing cause of action - $ite remained unde2eloped for long - *t is a continuing cause of action -
Complaint not to be dismissed as time barred - 1998(2 C!C 51# !b%
--7 complaint cannot be dismissed on basis of limitation when there is a continuity in cause of action - 1998(1 C!C
##' !b%
&7ppeal cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 1998(2 C!C '91 )%!%
&Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred where cause of action is in continuity - 2++2(2 C!C '5" Chd%
&Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 2++"(1 C!C 22+
8aha%
--7mount for /ob paid in 199' whereas 5! promised to refund the amount through a letter written in 199( -
Complaint filed in 1998 cannot be treated as barred by limitation - 2++2(2 C!C "1+ ,%3%
&Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is a continuing cause of action - 1998(1 C!C 8# )r%
&Complaint cannot be held time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 1998(2 C!C 5(( 3%C%
&Complaint not barred by time when there is a continuity of cause of action - 2+++(1 C!C 259 $%C%
&Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuing cause of action - 2+++(1 C!C #8# !b%
&6elay of two years in filing a complaint - Cause of action being in continuity condonation of delay /ustified -
2++5(2 C!C '1' $%C%
&Complaint cannot be treated as time barred when there is continuity in cause of action - 2++2(2 C!C '92 ;er%
Continuing wrong - Ahen there is a Dcontinuing wrongE delay should be condoned - 1998(1 C!C 281 9u/%
Continuity - Cause of action - Limitation starts from the date of stoppage of continuity of cause of action -
199#(1 C!C 292 BC;
&Ahen there is continuing cause of action petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation - r.
1ameshchandra 1amniklal Shah 2% $4s. Lata Construction, 199#(1 C!C 2+5 3%C%
Continuity of limitation - $ubse.uent showing continuity of time - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time
barred - 2++8(1 C!C #81 3%C%
Continuity proceedings - !roceedings being in continuity: .uestion of complaint being time barred does not
arise 0 2+1+(1 C!C 25" 3%C%
Counsels advice - 6elay of "( days in filing of appeal - 8istaken ad2ice of 7d2ocate no ground for
condonation of delay - 1999(1 C!C 92 !b%
8
Date of Order - 6ate of order under $ection 15 of the 7ct should be construed as date of knowledge - 1992
C!C (+" 3%C%
&Limitation starts from the date when order is signed by member of 1orum and date of signing is taken as date of
pronouncement - 2++5(1 C!C 1+2 4%!%
Delay - 7ppeal filed with delay of "(+ days without sufficient cause 0 5fficial process as cause of delay not
con2incing 0 7ppeal dismissed as barred by time - 2+1+(' C!C 5+2 3%C%
--Complaint filed # years after cause of action: without e-plaining delay - 6ismissed as time barred - inesh Sin#la
2% $4s Silverline ,echnolo#ies Ltd., 2++1(1 C!C 5# Chd%
--Condonation - 3o plea about condonation of delay taken in 7ppeal - 6elay cannot be condoned e2en if appeal is
filed by 6epartment - 1998(2 C!C (' 4%!%
&Consumer=s complaint should not be defeated by delays - Su)hash Chander 2% Union o* India, 199"(1 C!C 2+'
!b% C )r% )igh Court
--6elay of 12' days in filing of appeal without sufficient reason 0 7ppeal dismissed as time barred - 2+1+(' C!C
5+8 3%C%
&6elay of 2 years in settlement of insurance claim amounts to a deficiency in ser2ice - 199((2 C!C #'+ !b%
--6elay of ''2 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay without sufficient reason disallowed - 2++'(2 C!C "5
3%C%
&6elay of '5( days in filing appeal - 6elay without reasonable cause cannot be condoned - Nahar Sin#h 2%
1e#huvar, 2++'(2 C!C "#" !b%
&6elay of " years in settlement of claim - 7ct of insurer amounts to deficiency in ser2ice - Pun+a) State -lectricity
%oard 2% ,he Oriental Insurance Com(any Ltd., 2+++(1 C!C 88 !b%
&6elay of "' days in fling appeal remains une-plained - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred - 1e#istrar, Coo(erative
Societies, &aryana 2% Shri Avinash Chander %hakri, 2++1(2 C!C #2' Chd%
&6elay of # years in filing the petition not e-plained - !etition dismissed as time barred - 199#(1 C!C 185 3%C%
&6elay of 818 days in filing appeal - 7llegation of wrong address cannot be accepted when was duly ser2ed by
substituted ser2ice - 2++'(2 C!C 82 3%C%
&6elay of more than 2 years in filing complaint - 6elay not e-plained - Complaint dismissed as time barred -
1e#istrar, University o* Pune 2% $rs. Pu+a Pravin 5a#h, 1998(2 C!C 9( 8aha%
&6elay of one month in car deli2ery - Company held liable for deficiency in ser2ice - 1992 C!C #2# )r%
&6elay of one year in settlement of claim - Claim to be paid with 12G per annum interest on the amount - Seh#al
Knit"ears .$4s./ 2% United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2+++(1 C!C (8 !b%
&*nordinate delay in settlement of insurance claim is perse a deficiency in ser2ice - Orintal Insurance Com(any
Ltd. 2% 1a#h)ir Sin#h, 199"(1 C!C 18+ )r%
&*nsurance policy for one year - 6elay of 8 months in settlement is un/ustified - 1995(2 C!C 19" !b%
&*nsurer delaying settlement of claim for fi2e years held liable to pay cost of <s% 2+:+++ e2en where insurance
claim was not awarded - 199#(2 C!C 21' 3%C%
--*nsurer made undue delay in settlement of claim - 6irected to pay <s% 1 lac as compensation - 2++8(2 C!C 29
3%C%
&*t is settled that each days delay should be e-plained by applicant - 2++'(2 C!C '#+ 3%C%
&8ere delay in intimation of loss cannot be made a ground for repudiation of claim - 2++8(2 C!C "5 3%C%
Delay Condonation - 7 cock and bull story was narrated for condonation of delay by appellant 0 <elief
declined - 2+1+(' C!C 88 )%!%
&7ppeal delayed by 82 days due to illness of appellant - 6elay condoned - 1ita 1ani .$s./ 2% Li*e Insurance
Cor(oration o* India, 2++5(1 C!C "'8 Chd%
--Cause of action arose in 199' - Complaint filed in 199( without gi2ing sufficient reason for delay - Condonation of
delay declined - 2++'(1 C!C 1#( !b%
--Condonation of delay of 12" days sought on 2ague grounds 0 6elay cannot be condoned 0 2+1+(1 C!C #2' 4%!%
--6elay cannot be condoned unless sufficient reason is shown - 2+1+(' C!C 1(8 3%C%
&6elay in filing of appeal due to counsel=s illness - 6elay to be condoned - Union o* India 2% Inder Krishan Kaul,
1998(1 C!C 58' 6elhi
--6elay of 1+5 days in filing appeal 0 !rocedural delay cannot be made a sufficient reason for condonation of delay
particularly when case is not strong on merits 0 2+1+(1 C!C '85 3%C%
&6elay of 1"# days in filing of appeal - 8isplacement of certified copy of order is no ground to condone delay -
1e#ional Provident 'und Commissioner 2% $r. ,.L. 3ats, 2++5(1 C!C (' Chd%
9
&6elay of '" days - 6elay caused by procedure of Legal Cell is no ground for condonation - 2eneral $ana#er
.Phones/ 2% Sucha Sin#h, 2++'(1 C!C 1"9 !b%
&6elay of '"( days cannot be condoned on mere allegation of non-receipt of copy of order - 2++"(1 C!C 588 !b%
&6elay of "8# to 551 days in filing appeals - 6elay not to be condoned without reasonable cause - 2urmit Kaur 2%
1a+)ir Sin#h, 2++'(1 C!C 5"9 !b%
--6elay of 95" days in filing application to set aside e-parte order due to fault on the part of 7d2ocate 0 6elay
condoned for sufficient reason shown - 2+1+(' C!C 28 3%C%
&6elay of few days in filing complaint due to typhoid fe2er - 6elay deser2es to be condoned - 2++"(1 C!C 8+
Chd%
&6elay of one day in filing appeal as copy was not attested by official - 6elay to be condoned - Union o* India 2%
1adha S"ami Satsan#, %eas, 1999(1 C!C 5"1 !b%
&Lawyer=s illness is no ground for condonation of delay - 7ppeal can be filed by other sources - National
Insurance Co. Ltd. 2% $4s. &aridev Chemical, 2++"(1 C!C 158 Chd%
&$hifting of office and misplacement of copy - 3ot sufficient reason for delay - 2++"(1 C!C 1(( !b%
--$imple statement that appeal with delay of "9 days could not be filed due to illness of two months is no ground to
condone the delay - 2+1+(' C!C '2# 3%C%
&Fague ground pleaded for cause of delay of 595 days - Condonation of delay declined - %hu(inder Sin#h Puri 2%
1a+inder Sin#h, 2++'(1 C!C 55# !b%
Delay in implementation $ 5rder of 1orum dated 29%1+%2++1 was complied with on 1(%1%2++' 0 6elay
co2ered by official procedure and not due to any bad intention 0 5rder of imposing penalty by 1orum .uashed - 2+1+(2
C!C '"5 !b%
Delay on Day-to-day basis - 6elay of '8# days in filing appeal 0 <eason for delay was stated due to fault of
lower rank officers 0 Cause for delay is not sufficient and day-to-day delay must be e-plained - 2+1+(' C!C #+ 3%C%
Delay"limitation - Complaint regarding non-receipt of units filed with delay of # years without any
e-planation for delay 0 6ismissal of complaint /ustified - 2++9(' C!C 1+# 3%C%
Dismissal in Default - ?arlier complaint dismissed in default - $econd complaint on same cause of action:
e2en within limitation not maintainable - 199#(2 C!C #'" )r%
%ffect of amendment of C& P& Act - ,ime spent in consumer proceedings was allowed to be e-cluded by
a2ailing section 1" of the Limitation 7ct for seeking relief from Ci2il Court 0 2+11(1 C!C 58+ $%C%
%#uity - Limitation cannot be condoned merely on basis of e.uity - 2++#(2 C!C (29 )r%
%'ecution $ 5rder of 1orum dated 29%1+%2++1 was complied with on 1(%1%2++' 0 6elay co2ered by official
procedure and not due to any bad intention 0 5rder of imposing penalty by 1orum .uashed - 2+1+(2 C!C '"5 !b%
--7pplication for e-ecution allowed - 7ppeal against the order delayed - Condonation due to lack of sufficient
reason declined - 2++"(1 C!C '5 3%C%
%'parte order 0 6elay of 95" days in filing application to set aside e-parte order due to fault on the part of
7d2ocate 0 6elay condoned for sufficient reason shown - 2+1+(' C!C 28 3%C%
%'tension fee $ Cause of action arose in 2++2 0 Complaint filed in 2++( after 15 years 0 Complaint dismissed
as hopelessly time barred- 8ere correspondence cannot e-tend period of limitation - 2+1+(2 C!C '+' )r%
%'tension of period - Complaint filed with delay of about ' years 0 7 letter from another authority directing
to approach consumer forum cannot e-tend the period of limitation 0 2+11(1 C!C '82 3%C%
(alse statement - Complainant .uoting 85 years against #+ years for condonation of delay - Condonation of
delay disallowed - 2++'(2 C!C "9 3%C%
)gnorance of law - *gnorance of law is no ground for seeking condonation of delay - 1998(2 C!C 511 !b%
)llness on ground of delay - $imple statement that appeal with delay of "9 days could not be filed due to
illness of two months is no ground to condone the delay - 2+1+(' C!C '2# 3%C%
)lliteracy $ 6elay of 2-H years in filing complaint 0 *lliteracy is not sufficient ground to condone delay - 2++9(2
C!C 5#8 4%!%
)nordinate delay 0 6elay of 9 months in filing of appeal 0 6elay cannot be condoned on 2ague grounds which
were found to be unsatisfactory 0 2+1+(1 C!C #'+ 4%!%
Lame e'cuse - 6elay of 8 months in filing of appeal 0 6elay cannot be condoned on lame e-cuse 0 2+1+(1
C!C 12" 3%C%
1+
Lawyers illness - 6elay in filing of appeal due to counsel=s illness - 6elay to be condoned - 1998(1 C!C 58'
6elhi
Lawyers misconduct - 7ppeal filed by lawyer dismissed on point of limitation and also on merit - Lawyer
cannot be held liable for delay in filing appeal - 2+++(1 C!C 28+ ;er%
Lawyers mistake - Copy of order misplaced by 7d2ocate - <eason not sufficient for condonation of delay -
2++"(2 C!C '"5 Chd%
Legal opinion - 6elay cannot be condoned that time was spent in seeking legal opinion - 2++'(2 C!C "85 !b%
&,ime spent in legal consultation is not a sufficient reason for condonation of delay - 2++'(1 C!C 255 Chd%
&,ime spent in legal opinion cannot be sufficient cause for condonation of delay - 2++'(2 C!C "5" Chd%
&,ime spent in seeking legal opinion from )ead 5ffice for filing appeal is no ground for condonation of delay -
2++1(2 C!C 2'9 !b%
Limitation - 1st operation done in 199' - 6uring 2nd operation in 2++2 after more than 1+ years gauIe found -
3o application for condonation of delay - Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2++#(2 C!C 555 8aha%
&7 claim cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation when cause of action is continuing - %ank o* India 2%
&.C.L. Ltd., 199"(1 C!C 1"# 3%C%
&7 clause in policy fi-ing limitation of 12 months for insurance claim - Legal remedy under C%!% 7ct is not
prohibited by such clause - Chairman-cum-$ana#in# irector 2% ,he Ne" India Assurance Co., 2++2(1 C!C 52' 5rissa
--7 Clause in policy prescribing 12 months for filing claim cannot o2erride limitation of 2 years prescribed u@s% 2"-
7 of the C%!% 7ct - United Insurance Com(any Ltd. 2% %aldev Chand $aha+an, 1999(1 C!C #5+ )%!%
&7 clause permitting 12 months for filing claim does not effect the period of 2 years gi2en u@s% 2"-7 of the C%!%
7ct - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2% Pun+a) State Civil Su((lies Cor(oration, 1999(1 C!C #52 !b%
&7 complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred where cause of action is in continuity - 2+++(2 C!C 58 Chd%
&7 complaint cannot be dismissed on basis of limitation when there is a continuity in cause of action - Union o*
India 2% $4s. $odi Industries, %arnala, 1998(1 C!C ##' !b%
&7 complaint: where cause of action arose before the enforcement of 7ct is permissible pro2ided it is not barred by
Law of Limitation - 1991 C!C 28+ 3%C%
&7 gauIe allegedly left in abdomen during a surgery performed 9 years ago 0 3o ob/ection was raised about
medical negligence during the long period - Complaint held to be time barred - 2+1+(' C!C '9( $%C%
&7 long delay can be condoned under C%!% 7ct if a sufficient cause of delay is established - 2++5(2 C!C 2"2
8aha%
&7 stale claim made after ' years not maintainable - 1991 C!C "' 3%C%
&7ccepting of price for alternati2e plot by allotment authority - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred -
2++'(1 C!C 112 3%C%
&7ccording to Clause 12 of *nsurance !olicy limitation for claim is 12 months - Claim made after 12 months held
to be time barred - 199' C!C "1" 3%C
&7lleged deficiency in ser2ice was committed in 19(9 - Complaint filed in 199+ is barred by limitation - 199' C!C
# 3%C%
&7llotment of flat in 1998 challenged in 2++2 without any application of condonation of delay - Condonation of
delay on oral re.uest un/ustified - 2++#(2 C!C #8# 3%C%
&7mending 7ct prescribing limitation of 2 years came into force on 18%#%199' - Complaint filed on 18%#%199' is
go2erned by old law - Sukanta Sarkar 2% Canara %ank, 199"(2 C!C 5+ A%>engal
&7mount for /ob paid in 199' whereas 5! promised to refund the amount through a letter written in 199( -
Complaint filed in 1998 cannot be treated as barred by limitation - 2++2(2 C!C "1+ ,%3%
&7n appeal filed after more than ' years held to be barred by limitation - 1995(2 C!C 2# 3%C%
&7n order dismissing an appeal on ground of limitation with sound reasons not to be upset in re2ision -
3ish"a)harthi &ouse %uildin# Co-O(erative Society Ltd. 2% Sharada Chandrasekhara, 1995(2 C!C ''1 3%C%
--7ppeal against award was filed after one year and " months - 7ppeal is hopelessly time barred - Par)hu ayal
Se"a 1am .$4s./ 2% ,elecom istrict $ana#er, 1995(2 C!C 1'' )r%
&7ppeal against order #%"%99 filed on 2#%1+%99 without showing sufficient cause for delay - 7ppeal dismissed as
time barred - r. 8uchin9s Nursin# &ome 2% istt. Consumer 'orum-II, Luckno", 2++2(1 C!C ##2 4%!%
&7ppeal delayed by 58 days without e-plaining delay - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred - 2++5(1 C!C #"5 3%C%
&7ppeal e2en after deducting time spent in writ petition was beyond limitation - 7ppeal stands dismissed as time
barred - Su)odh Ka(oor 2% istrict Consumer is(utes 1edressal 'orum, Chandi#arh, 199#(1 C!C 5## Chd%
&7ppeal filed ( months after the e-piry of limitation - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred - 199"(2 C!C 59 !b%
11
&7ppeal filed after delay of (2 days but within limitation from date of knowledge - 6elay condoned - -state
O**icer, &aryana Ur)an evelo(ment Authority 2% Kir(al Sin#h, 199((1 C!C 5+' )r%
&7ppeal filed after e-piry of limitation without gi2ing sufficient cause for delay - 6ismissed as barred by time -
3aid 1am Pal Sharma 2% $unici(al Cor(oration, Amritsar, 199"(2 C!C 58 !b%
&7ppeal filed after e-piry of limitation without sufficient cause - 6ismissed as time barred - 2+++(1 C!C #'"
6elhi
&7ppeal filed at belated stage - 3o application for condonation - 8ere non receipt of order no ground for
condonation - r. Pa"an Sharma 2% 2eneral $ana#er, ,ele(hone, 1998(2 C!C 2(1 Chd%
&7ppeal filed beyond 25 days with no application for condonation - )eld: time barred 199' C!C 15 !b%
--7ppeal filed on 21%8%2++8 against order dated '%8%2++( 0 9rant of condonation of delay not con2incing 0
7ppeal dismissed as time barred - 2++9(2 C!C 5#' )%!%
--7ppeal filed with delay of '"8 days 0 ,o say that papers of file were misplaced by her counsel is not a con2incing
reason 0 7ppeal rightly dismissed as time barred 0 5rder upheld 0 2+11(1 C!C 22" 3%C%
&7ppeal filed within '+ days after receipt of copy - Cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation - State %ank o*
India 2% Citi:en Protection 'orum, 199((2 C!C 55' 6elhi
--7ppeal of )467 with delay of 182" days was dismissed as time barred by authority below 0 ,aking no
lesson from this order re2ision was filed with delay of 1(1 days taking plea of procedural delay 0 <e2ision
dismissed as time barred 0 2+1+(1 C!C 2'8 3%C%
--7ppeal with delay of 155' days dismissed by $tate Commission as no reasonable cause gi2en by appellant for
condonation of delay 0 !resence of petitioner@5! was recorded in order of 6istrict 1orum 0 5rder of $tate Commission
upheld 0 2+11(1 C!C '85 3%C%
&7ppellant concealing real fact from Court - Condonation of delay disallowed - 199#(1 C!C '82 3%C%
&7ppellant not recei2ing copy of impugned order - 1iling appeal with promptness with second copy - 6elay
condoned - Indian Petrochemicals Cor(oration Ltd. .$4s./ 2% Smt. Kaushalya evi, 199#(1 C!C 1"' !b%
&7ppellant=s wife was ill - 6elay of 12 days in filing an appeal was condoned - avinder Sin#h 2% &aryana Ur)an
evelo(ment Authority, 199#(1 C!C 59" )r%
&7pplication for condonation of delay of one year without any con2incing reason - 7ppeal rightly dismissed as
time barred - 2++'(2 C!C 5++ 3%C%
&7pplication for copy of order gi2en after '+ days of the order - Condonation of delay not granted on ground of
long distance - 2++'(2 C!C 81 3%C%
--7uction of godown site held on 21-2-1995 - $ite transferred to complainant on 2+-5-199# - Complaint filed on 2"-
2-1999 is time barred - 2+++(2 C!C '+9 Chd%
&>enefit of time spent in wrong court should be gi2en to complainant - 6elay condoned - N.1. !hin#an v. r.
Parveen 2ar#, 2++8(1 C!C 22 )r%
&>uilders offered possession of built area in 1991 0 Complaint filed in 199# is ob2iously time barred - 2+1+(' C!C
155 4%!%
&Car after repair detained for four years by dealer for reco2ery of charges - ,ime of " years should e-cluded for
limitation purpose - Pradee( Kumar Khurana 2% $4s. 5heels 5orld, 199((1 C!C '12 )%!%
--Carrier made party after 11 years 0 3otice was not gi2en to carrier till they were made party 0 Complaint
time barred as per pro2isions of Carrier by 7ir 7ct: 19(2 read with C! 7ct: 198# 0 3o relief entitled - 2++9(2
C!C 9' 3%C%
--Cause of action (negligence arose in 199( 0 Complaint filed in 2++' without gi2ing sufficient cause for
delay 0 Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2++9(2 C!C 112 3%C%
&Cause of action accrued in 8arch: 198( - Complainant filed on 2'%2%2+++: dismissed as time barred - 2++2(1
C!C 188 3%C%
--Cause of action arises from date of repudiation of claim 0 !etition not barred by limitation 0 2+1+(1
C!C 282 3%C%
&Cause of action arose before amending 7ct: 199' - Case is go2erned by old law of limitation (' years - 3.
$urlidhar 2% 2okul -states, 1995(1 C!C #'2 ,%3%
&Cause of action arose before 7mendment 7ct: 199' - Limitation for filing a complaint is ' years - Sharadchandra
1aorekar 2% %ho(al evelo(ment Authority, 1998(2 C!C 121 8%!%
&Cause of action arose before enforcement of 7ct: 199' - Limitation for filing complaint is ' years from cause of
action - Coin(ar, Centre o* Indian Consumer Protection and 1esearch .$4s./ 2% S. Chandra Kumar, $ana#in# Partner,
1998(1 C!C 12 ;er%
12
&Cause of action arose before enforcement of $ec% 2"-7 - Complaint filed within three years of cause of action is
not time barred - S. 3enkataraman 2% $4s. 2.K. Constructions, 199((1 C!C #(5 ,%3%
&Cause of action arose in 19(2 - Complaint filed in 1992 - $uch a stale claim cannot be accepted - 2++'(2 C!C
'"2 3%C%
&Cause of action arose in 19(" whereas complaint was filed in 199" - Complaint is hopelessly time barred -
2anesh ass 2% ,he ,rustee, Provident 'und, 199#(1 C!C 598 )r%
&Cause of action arose in 19(5-19(( - Complaint filed in 199# rightly dismissed as time barred - 2++"(1 C!C 2#
3%C%
&Cause of action arose in 198+ - Complaint filed in 1991 - Complaint being time barred: not entertainable - 1992
C!C #'( 3%C%
&Cause of action arose in 198' - Complaint filed in 1992 - Complaint not maintainable - 1992 C!C #"1 3%C%
&Cause of action arose in 198' regarding fraudulent withdrawal - Complaint filed in 1992 is hopelessly time barred
- Pun+a) National %ank 2% 1ama Kant 8adava, 199((2 C!C #8( >ihar
&Cause of action arose in 198# when receipt of deposit was issued - Complaint filed in 1992 is hopelessly barred by
time - Ke"al 1am ,hakur 2% Senior Su(erintendent, Post O**ice, 199((2 C!C 5(( )%!%
&Cause of action arose in 198( - Complaint filed in 1991 is highly belated and is dismissed as time barred - 199"(1
C!C #9" 3%C%
--Cause of action arose in 1988 0 Complaint filed in 199" 0 Complaint dismissed as time barred 0 2+1+(1
C!C 55 3%C
--Cause of action arose in 1988 whereas complaint was filed in 1995 - Complaint dismissed as time barred in the
absence of satisfactory reason for delay - 2++((1 C!C #1 3%C%
&Cause of action arose in 1989 - Complaint filed in 199' - Continuity of cause of action established - Complaint
not to be dismissed as time barred - Lt. Col. .1etd./ Sara)+it &anda 2% $aruti Udyo# Ltd., Ne" elhi, 199' C!C 5"9 )r%
&Cause of action arose in 1989 whereas complaint was filed in 199' - Complaint barred by limitation - Shiv 1ice
and 2eneral $ills .$4s./ 2% &aryana State -lectricity %oard, 199#(1 C!C "12 )r%
&Cause of action arose in 199+ - Complaint filed in 1998 - Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2++'(2 C!C 58"
3%C%
&Cause of action arose in 1991 - Complaint filed in 2+++ dismissed as time barred - 2++5(1 C!C '1' 3%C%
&Cause of action arose in 1991 whereas complaint was filed in 1998 - Complaint is hopelessly time barred and
hence dismissed - 2++5(2 C!C '19 3%C%
&Cause of action arose in 1992 complaint filed within ' years held to be within time when $ection 2"-7 was not
applicable - 1999(2 C!C "#5 $%C%
&Cause of action arose in 199" - Complaint filed in 2++1 is barred by time - 7pproaching to bank authorities during
this period cannot e-tend the time - 2++2(1 C!C 5#5 3%C%
&Cause of action arose in 1995 - *nsurance claim filed in 1995 after repeated re.uest for settlement - Claim cannot
be re/ected on limitation as there was continuity in cause of action - 1a+ -nter(rises .$4s./ 2% %ranch $ana#er, National
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2++2(1 C!C 591 4%!%
--Cause of action arose in 199( 0 Complaint filed in 2++5 0 Complaint rightly dismissed as barred by limitation 0
8erely writing a letter by !anchayat does not create fresh cause of action - 2++9(1 C!C 9# 3%C%
--Cause of action arose in 1998 when possession was deli2ered 0 Complaint filed in 2++2 without
e-plaining delay is barred by limitation - 2++9(2 C!C '9+ 3%C%
--Cause of action arose in 2++2 0 Complaint filed in 2++( after 15 years 0 Complaint dismissed as hopelessly time
barred- 8ere correspondence cannot e-tend period of limitation - 2+1+(2 C!C '+' )r%
&Cause of action arose in Banuary-7pril: 1992 - Complaint filed in 5ctober: 199" dismissed as time barred -
2++2(2 C!C 9" 3%C
&Cause of action arose on 1'-11-91 - Complaint filed on 18-2-9" - Claim be barred by time - 2++2(1 C!C 281
3%C%
&Cause of action arose on 1#%#%1988 - Complaint filed on 1+%8%1992 is barred by time - 2o(i $atchin# Centre
.$4s./ 2% $4s. U(kar ,rans(ort Com(any, 1995(2 C!C '9' )r%
&Cause of action arose on 2'%1%9( - Complaint filed on 21%(%99 without gi2ing reason for delay - Complaint rightly
dismissed as barred by limitation - Lakh)ir Sin#h 2% Pun+a) State -lectricity %oard, 2++2(2 C!C 5"' !b%
&Cause of action arose on 2'%1+%2+++ - 7ppeal filed on "%9%2++' dismissed as time barred - r. A.P. $ittal v. $4s.
Anukam(a Com(uters Private Limited, 2++5(1 C!C '+( Chd%
&Cause of action arose on 25%5%1991 - Complaint filed on (%#%1995 is clearly barred by limitation - S.1oshan v.
Sai#al Associates: 2++"(2 C!C 19' 6elhi
1'
--Cause of action arose on 25%9%1991 when truck met with an accident - Complaint filed in 5ctober 1999 is barred
by limitation - 2++5(1 C!C "2( 3%C%
--Cause of action arose on #%5%199# whereas complaint was filed on 15%'%1999 0 3o sufficient reason for delay gi2en
0 Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2+1+(2 C!C "(5 3%C%
--Cause of action arose on (%#%199" 0 Complaint filed on 5%5%199( 0 3o satisfactory reason gi2en for delay
0 Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2++9(2 C!C 1 $%C%
--Cause of action can be stretched when first notice issued on #%'%2+++ 0 Complaint filed in 2++# 0 8aking
of any subse.uent representation cannot e-tend the period of limitation - 2++9(2 C!C 5"" 3%C%
&Cause of action had accrued before 7mendment 7ct: 199' - Complaint filed within ' years from date of cause of
action not barred by time - Si(ani Automo)iles Ltd. .$4s./ 2% Ke"al Krishan u##al, 1998(2 C!C 1'+ )r%
&Cause of action in continuity - Complaint not barred by time - elhi evelo(ment Authority v. $ohan Sin#h,
2++5(1 C!C #28 6elhi
&Cause of action regarding non supply of electricity arose in 198( - Complaint filed in 1991 is beyond limitation -
2++2(1 C!C '(" 3%C%
&Cause of action relating to forged signature on che.ue arose in 199" - Compliant filed in 1998 is hopelessly time
barred - 2++((1 C!C 5++ 3%C%
&Cause of action started on 9%1+%2++2 - Complaint filed within two years - 3ot barred by limitation - L.2.
-lectronics India .P/ Ltd. v. !a#rut Na#rik, 2++#(1 C!C 89 9u/%
&Cause of action would arise when a 2ehicle had been entrusted for repairs and not from the date of notice for
compensation - 199#(1 C!C 89 3%C%
&Cause of action would start not from original agreement but from the latest agreement .ua same transaction -
199#(1 C!C #5( 3%C%
&Che.ue dishonored on 21-(-199# - Complaint filed on (-(- 1998 - Liable to be dismissed as time barred - 2urdev
Sin#h 2% Pun+a) National %ank, 2+++(2 C!C #" !b%
--Che.ue presented on 1(%"%199( for encashment 0 1inal denial for encashment gi2en on 2+%2%1999 by
>ank 8anager 0 Cause of action arose on 2+%2%1999 0 Complaint not barred by limitation - 2++9(2 C!C ##8
$%C%
&Ci2il suit withdrawn without any /ustification - >enefit of time spent in ci2il litigation cannot be gi2en u@s 1" of
Limitation 7ct - Li*e Insurance Cor(oration o* India v. $ukesh evi, 2++8(1 C!C 1+8 )r%
&Claim filed within 2 years under C%!% 7ct - Limitation of 12 months gi2en in policy cannot o2erride - $ec% 2"-7 of
the 7ct - Oriental Insurance Com(any Ltd. 2% Shri !a#mohan Lal 2u(ta, 1999(1 C!C #'1 )%!%
&Claim filed within one year from date of repudiation - 3ot barred by law of limitation - Ne" India Assurance
Com(any 2% $aster A+it Pal Sin#h, 2++1(1 C!C 5 4%!%
--Claim filed within prescribed period of ' months 0 <epudiation of claim as barred by limitation set aside 0 2++9('
C!C 555 $%C%
&Claim for deficient ser2ice after three years of the date of cause of action is not maintainable - 1991 C!C "2 3%C%
&Claim for non-deli2ery of consignment filed after 2 years - Claim dismissed as time barred - 199#(2 C!C "'8
3%C%
--Claim repudiated in 1988 but complaint filed in 199" when limitation period was ' years 0 Complaint dismissed as
time barred - 2++9(1 C!C 2(" $%C%
&Claim was repudiated in 1989 - Complaint filed in 199( dismissed as time barred - 8ere correspondence between
the parties cannot e-tend the time - Seh#al Knit"ears .$4s/ 2% United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2+++(1 C!C "#+ !b%
--Compensation on the ground of hiring of ser2ice not to paid after ' years - 1991 C!C "2 3%C%
&Complainant came to know about the deficiency in ser2ice in 1988 - Complaint filed in 199+ - Complaint is
within time - Smt. K. Saralamma 2% %an#alore evelo(ment Authority, 1991 C!C ##' ;ar%
&Complainant filed within two years from cause of action - Complaint held to be within time - $ohmmad U)aid
Siddi;ui 2% r. 1amesh Kumar U(adhaya, 2+++(1 C!C '"( 4%!%
&Complainant making claim efforts for settlement of claim of loss occurred in 199': filed in 1998 not barred as it
was repudiated in 1998 - $ansa Central Coo(erative %ank Ltd. 2% Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999(1 C!C 1"+ !b%
&Complainant was negligent in getting the copy of order in time - Condonation of delay declined - 1a+asthan
&ousin# %oard v. 1an Kaushal Sin#h, 2++8(' C!C '+8 3%C%
&Complaint about allotment of plot not maintainable after si- years of cause of action - 1991 C!C 5(1 !b%
&Complaint about defect in power ,iller filed within 2 years from last reminder to dealer - Complaint not barred by
time - 1999(2 C!C 518 3%C%
1"
&Complaint about escalated price of a house: not maintainable after e-piry of ' years after the deli2ery of
possession - Sri A.3. Narayan 2% ,he Commissioner, 1991 C!C 185 ;ar%
&Complaint about non issue of debenture hopelessly time barred - Complaint not entertainable- Industrial Credit
and Investment Cor(. o* India Ltd. 2% Shri ,e+ Pal, 1998(2 C!C 2"# )r%
&Complaint about rendering deficient ser2ice filed ten years after cause of action without /ust call - Complaint
dismissed as time barred - 2++#(2 C!C #8" 3%C%
&Complaint against doctor filed with the delay of ( years - !etition dismissed as time barred - 1a+esh Kumar 2% r.
.P. %akshi, 2++1(2 C!C 2#2 3%C%
&Complaint against doctor for failure of eyes operation filed in 1995 whereas operation was carried in 1992 -
Complaint from date of failure of operation is within time - r. Shyamkumar 2% 1amesh)hai &arman)hai Kachhiya,
2++2(1 C!C 5#9 9u/%
--Complaint against 5! for non deli2ery of consignment in time 0 Complaint cannot be dismissed on ground that
limitation is not filed within one year prescribed by Carriage of 9oods by $ea 7ct: 1925 0 2++9(' C!C '(8 $%C%
&Complaint allegedly after two and half years of repudiation - ?nteries in dispatch register pertaining to repudiation
interpolated - 5rder set aside - 2++#(1 C!C "21 3%C%
&Complaint alleging medical negligence in operation of stone filed beyond limitation - 7ppeal dismissed as time
barred - Amar+it Sin#h 2% Ludhiana Stone Clinic, 1999(2 C!C "+( !b%
--Complaint barred by limitation is liable to be dismissed e2en without any plea of limitation in 2iew of
ruling of ape- court 0 2+1+(1 C!C ""+ 3%C%
&Complaint barred by time before 6istrict 1orum - $uch .uestion of law can be raised first time in appeal -
National %uildin# Construction Cor(. Ltd. 2% !indal Steel Industries, 2+++(2 C!C '' !b%
--Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is a continuity of a cause of action 0 2++9(' C!C 5((
3%C%
&Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is a continuing cause of action - 1998(1 C!C 8# )r%
--Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity in cause of action - 2ur)a6 Sin#h 2%
Pun+a) Ur)an Plannin# and evelo(ment Authority, 1998(2 C!C 5+( Chd%
&Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - &.$.,. Limited v.
1amesh Kumar: 2++5(1 C!C 585 Chd%
&Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 2+++(1 C!C 215 8%!%
&Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - P. 2o(akrishna Nair
2% Sunrise %uilders, 2++"(1 C!C 22+ 8aha%
&Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred where cause of action is continuing - -6ecutive -n#ineer,
U.P.S.-.%. 2% President, Na#ar Panchayat, 2++1(1 C!C 1" 4%!%
--Complaint cannot be dismissed on ground of limitation when cause of action is continuing - 2+1+(2 C!C 1"5 3%C%
&Complaint cannot be held time barred when there is continuity of cause of action - 1998(2 C!C 5(( 3%C%
&Complaint cannot be treated as time barred when there is continuity in cause of action - !ames K. aniel 2% $4s.
!ayalakshmi %uilders Pvt. Ltd., 2++2(2 C!C '92 ;er%
--Complaint could not be filed within limitation due to fault of counsel 0 !arty cannot be made to suffer - 6elay of
29 days condoned - - 2++9(1 C!C 221 !b%
--Complaint delayed by 11 months and 1+ days without filing any application for condonation of delay 0 Complaint
dismissed as time barred - 2++9(1 C!C 8" 3%C%
--Complaint dismissed on ground of limitation e2en without notice to complainant 0 5rder set aside 0 Case
remanded for fresh decision 0 2++9(' C!C 99 $%C%
&Complaint filed 2 years after accruing cause of action cannot be entertained - Sukh"inder Sin#h 2% ,he Land
Ac;uisition Collector, 2++1(1 C!C 85 !b%
&Complaint filed ' and ( months after repudiation of claim - Complaint being time hared not maintainable - Ne"
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pa"an Sharma: 2++((1 C!C 111 )r%
&Complaint filed ' years after cause of action - 6ismissed as time barred - 199#(2 C!C #' 3%C%
&Complaint filed ' years after cause of action: is not maintainable - r. 1. N. Sethi 2% &ardial Sin#h, 199((2 C!C
""9 !b%
&Complaint filed '2 months after real cause of action - Complaint dismissed as time barred - Savitri 3erma .r./ v.
$4s $etro $otors, 2++8(1 C!C 1"+ Chd%
&Complaint filed " years after occurring of cause of action cannot be entertained - 2++"(2 C!C 5(( )%!%
&Complaint filed # years after alleged deficiency in ser2ice - 6ismissed as time barred - 199"(2 C!C 1(9 3%C%
15
&Complaint filed # years after cause of action: without e-plaining delay - 6ismissed as time barred - inesh Sin#la
2% $4s Silverline ,echnolo#ies Ltd., 2++1(1 C!C 5# Chd%
&Complaint filed after 2 years period from cause of action not maintainable - $ohinder Kaur 2%
Chairman4$ana#in# irector, United India Insurance Co., 199((1 C!C 2+' Chd%
&Complaint filed after ' years of refusal by bank to pay maturity amount - Complaint is barred by limitation -
1995(2 C!C 1"( 3%C%
&Complaint filed after (@8 years from date of cause of action - <ightly dismissed as barred by time - 2++#(2 C!C
225 3C
--Complaint filed after a lapse of ?le2en years from the cause of action not maintainable - 1991 C!C 12" 3%C%
&Complaint filed after delay of 5 years from date of cause of action - Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2++1(2
C!C #9 3%C%
&Complaint filed after delay of one decade - Complaint liable to be dismissed on point of limitation - 2+++(1 C!C
2"" $%C%
&Complaint filed after e-piry of 2 years from date of cause of action - Compliant dismissed as time barred - Shanti
al $ills .$4s./ v. Ne" India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2++((1 C!C 285 )r%
&Complaint filed after e-piry of ' years from purchase of defecti2e machinery is not maintainable - 199#(1 C!C
#51 3%C%
&Complaint filed after e-piry of limitation not entertainable - $aharia -nter(rises 2% Sur+a, 199((1 C!C 512 )r%
&Complaint filed after e-piry of limitation period from the cause of action - )eld liable to be dismissed as time
barred - 2urdial Sin#h 2% -icher ,ractor Ltd., 2+++(1 C!C 52+ !b%
&Complaint filed after four years - Cause of action not maintainable - 199"(2 C!C "1# 3%C%
&Complaint filed after four years and nine months of the cause of action held liable to be dismissed as time barred -
-state $ana#er, &ousin# %oard 2% $a+or Sunil Anand, 199' C!C "8 )r%
&Complaint filed after laps of 1+ years from date of award of arbitrator - Complaint dismissed as award by
limitation - 2++((2 C!C 5"1 3%C%
&Complaint filed against irregularities in purchase of plot - 8ere correspondence cannot e-tend the limitation -
Complaint dismissed - Im(rovement ,rust, 'aridkot 2% %hu(inder Kaur, 1999(2 C!C (" !b%
--Complaint filed against 5! within two years from the date of cause of action 0 5! cannot take the plea that
complaint filed after one year from the date of cause of action is beyond limitation 0 Complaint filed within two years is
maintainable - 2++9(1 C!C "1 3%C%
&Complaint filed before 7mending 7ct 199' - !eriod of limitation is ' years - Shi)u 2% St. !ose(h &os(ital,
1995(2 C!C 5(9 ;er%
&Complaint filed before 7mending 7ct: 199' which introduced $ec% 2"7 of the 7ct 0 Limitation filed within '
years of cause of action not barred by the limitation - 2+1+(' C!C '(' 3%C%
&Complaint filed before 7mendment 7ct: 199' - !eriod of two years limitation not applicable - 3.P. Sharma v.
Sikander Lal and Com(any: 2++"(2 C!C #12 6elhi
&Complaint filed beyond 2 years is not entertainable in 2iew of $ection 2"-7 of the 7ct - aya Sa#ar Sahu 2%
United Insurance Com(any, 1995(1 C!C 5'5 4%!%
&Complaint filed beyond 2 years of cause of action - Complaint dismissed as barred by time - K. Shankar &e#de
.$r./ 2% Chie* $ana#er, Pun+a) National %ank, %om)ay, 199#(1 C!C #(1 ;ar%
&Complaint filed during continuance of cause of action not barred by time - 1999(2 C!C 119 3%C%
&Complaint filed in 199# - 7lleged medical negligence committed in 199' - Complaint dismissed as time barred -
K.2. Kumaran 2% r. Santharam Shetty and Ors., 2++'(2 C!C '#+ 3%C%
&Complaint filed on 11%8%1995 0 Limitation will start from 28%(%2++5 0 Continuing cause of action 0 Complaint well
within time - 2+1+(' C!C 51# 3%C%
&Complaint filed on 2"%(%2++2 against cause of action arisen on '1%(%2+++ - 7ppeal not barred by limitation -
$illennium School %haratiya Academic Society v. !a#an Lal %ad"ani: 2++"(2 C!C '"' C%9%
--Complaint filed with delay of about ' years 0 7 letter from another authority directing to approach consumer
forum cannot e-tend the period of limitation 0 2+11(1 C!C '82 3%C%
--Complaint filed within ' years before 7mending 7ct: 199' - 3ot barred by limitation - !as(al Sin#h 2% Chairman,
1a+asthan &ousin# %oard, 199#(1 C!C 298 <a/%
&Complaint filed within ' years from a cause of action arising in 8ay: 1989 - Complaint is within time - Piari Lal
$adan 2% Smt. &archaran Kaur, 1995(2 C!C #5" )r%
&Complaint filed within ' years from cause of action ha2ing accrued before 7mending 7ct: 199' - Complaint not
time barred - State %ank o* India 2% Narayan as $ishra, 1998(2 C!C 1'2 8%!%
1#
&Complaint filed within ' years from date of cause of action before 7mending 7ct: 199' - Complaint not barred by
limitation - N. 2. 1a+a#o(alan 2% %ranch $ana#er, $4s. I.,.C. Ltd., 2++2(1 C!C 1#5 ,%3%
&Complaint filed within limitation from date of DacknowledgementE - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time
barred - 1onak Chand 2% $4s. -.C.P. Ltd., 1998(2 C!C 281 )r%
&Complaint filed within limitation from date of knowledge of cause of action - Complaint is within limitation -
2++#(1 C!C 2"+ 3%C%
&Complaint filed within limitation from the date of cause of action - Complaint is maintainable - 199((1 C!C "15
3%C%
&Complaint filed within limitation from the date of knowledge of cause of action - 3ot to be dismissed as barred by
time - $ukunda Lal 2an#uly 2% r. A)hi+it 2hosh, 199#(1 C!C "# A%>engal
&Complaint filed within limitation from the date of knowledge of mistake - Complaint not time barred - A(e6
1oller 'lour $ills .P/ Ltd. 2% Indian Overseas %ank, 1995(1 C!C 58' ,%3%
&Complaint filed within limitation starting from bouncing of second che.ue - Complainant entitled to a2ail remedy
under section ' of the 7ct for refund of deposit for allotment - 2++8(1 C!C 5+2 3%C%
&Complaint filed within one year from repudiation of claim - Complaint not time barred - ,ek Chand 2% Ne" India
Assurance Co. Ltd., 2++1(1 C!C 2+ 4%!%
&Complaint filed within prescribed period of 2 years from date of cause of action - Complaint not barred by time -
%ranch $ana#er, S.%.I. Kendra(ada 2% Krushna Chandra as, 2++1(1 C!C 15+ 5rissa
&Complaint filed within three years from cause of action prior to amendment of $ection 2"-7 - Complaint cannot
be dismissed as time barred - 2++2(1 C!C #"" 3%C%
&Complaint filed within two years from cause of action - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2++5(2
C!C "'5 3%C%
&Complaint filed within two years from date of receipt of letter intimating loss of goods to consignor - Complaint
not barred by limitation - 2++((1 C!C 555 $%C%
--Complaint for insurance claim filed after more than four years after cause of action - Cause of action does not
continue till time of denial of claim - Complaint dismissed - 2++'(2 C!C 2(5 3%C%
&Complaint highly time barred: not maintainable under the Consumer 7ct - 1992 C!C 8" 3%C%
&Complaint hopelessly time barred - 7 stale claim cannot be entertained - 99' C!C 2+" 3%C%
&Complaint hopelessly time barred - Cannot be entertained under Consumer !rotection 7ct - Sardari Lal Om
Parkash .$4s./ 2% Pun+a) National %ank, 1995(1 C!C '59 )r%
&Complaint is not time barred when there is continuity in cause of action - Calcutta Construction Com(any 2%
Senior ivisional $ana#er, National Insurance Co., 2++'(2 C!C "'+ Chd%
&Complaint not barred by time when there is a continuity of cause of action - 2+++(1 C!C 259 $%C%
&Complaint not filed within one year prescribed by Carriage of 9oods by $ea 7ct: 1925 - Complaint dismissed as
time barred - 2++5(2 C!C '21 3%C%
&Complaint not filed within two years as prescribed under <ule '+ (1 of Carriage by 7ir 7ct: 19(2 - Complaint
not maintainable - 199((2 C!C 2+2 3%C%
&Complaint not to be dismissed when filed within limitation from the date of cause of action - Pearl -6(orts and
Im(orts 2% Ne" %ank o* India, 1995(1 C!C "(# !b%
&Complaint not to be non suited on the ground of laches if complaint is filed within limitation - &aryana State
-lectricity %oard 2% !a"ahar Lal Sin#la, 199' C!C (55 )r%
&Complaint regarding defects in construction and de2elopment of cracks in walls filed after delay of ten years from
deli2ery of possession - 5rder of $tate Commission accepting complaint: set aside - 2++8(2 C!C 2"+ 3%C%
&Complaint regarding lack of amenities to industrial shed filed in 1991 - 7llotment was made in 199( - Complaint
dismissed as time barred 2++2(1 C!C '8# 3%C%
--Complaint regarding non pro2iding of basic facilities as per letter of allotment made in 1992 0 Complaint
filed in 1999 being hopelessly time barred is dismissed 0 2+1+(1 C!C 2++ 3%C%
&Complaint regarding non-deli2ery of possession of flat should be made within three years - 1991 C!C '91 (1
3%C%
--Complaint was filed beyond a period of ' years - <elief declined - 1995(1 C!C 1(+ 3%C%
&Complaint was filed beyond a period of ' years before the 7mending 7ct: <==> - )eld liable to be dismissed on
the ground of limitation - Savita Chha)ra 2% %ank o* India, 1995(1 C!C 2+" Chd%
--Complaint within limitation from date of cause of action 0 Complaint not barred by limitation 0 2+1+(1
C!C ##" 3%C%
1(
&Complaint within limitation from date of disco2ery of ,%F% defect - Complaint cannot be dismissed as barred by
limitation - K.K. Pra)hakaran 2% P.$. Suresh, 2++1(1 C!C 28' ;er%
&Complaint within limitation from the date of acknowledgement of claim cannot be dismissed as time barred from
date of cause of action - National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2% $4s. Saras"ati Udyo#, 1998(1 C!C '9( )r%
--Complaints filed beyond period of two years held to be barred by limitations - 2++9(1 C!C 225 3%C%
--Complaints regarding payment on maturity filed beyond ' years of cause of action 0 !lea of conformity of cause of
action repelled 0 Complaints filed beyond limitation not maintainable 0 2+11(1 C!C #5+ 3%C%
&Concocted story narraed for condonation of delay of 2(8 days - 6elay not to be condoned - 2++((2 C!C 128
3%C%
&Condonation - 7ppeal time barred - 3o application with affida2it filed for condonation - 7ppeal dismissed as time
barred - $4s. Saree Centre, Sodhi -m(orium 2% Sar+it Kaur, 1991 C!C 5'8 )r%
&Condonation - $tate is not entitled to any concession in respect of condonation of delay: more than a pri2ate party
- &ousin# %oard, &aryana 2% r. S. L. Chaudhary, 1991 C!C 295 )r%
&Condonation of delay 0 6elay of 5( days in filing the appeal 0 Ahen the court is satisfied that matter re.uires
compensation on merit 0 6elay in filing the appeal may be condoned - 2+1+(' C!C '#' 3%C%
&Condonation of delay - ,ime consuming in consultation of documents is not a sufficient ground for condonation
of delay - ,elecom istrict -n#ineer, haramshala 2% $4s. S. $ehra &otels, 1991 C!C 19' )%!%
&Condonation of delay in absence of sufficient cause cannot be allowed - ,. Kavita 1eddy 2% Ur)an evelo(ment
Authority, 2++1(1 C!C #"+ 7%!%
&Condonation of delay in appeal cannot be allowed when there is no application accompanied with an affida2it -
-state O**icer, &aryana Ur)an evelo(ment Authority, &issar 2% Shri 1attan Sin#h, 1991 C!C ##1 )r%
&Condonation on the ground of administrati2e and inter departmental lapses is not permissible - -state O**icer,
&.U..A., 2ur#aon 2% $ohinder Parta(, 199' C!C 55" )r%
--Construction agreement e-ecuted on 29%'%199' 0 Construction completed in 8arch: 1995 0 7greement and letter
show that payment was construction-linked 0 Complaint filed on 15%1+%1998 was within limitation - 2++9(1 C!C 1#'
3%C%
&Continuity - 7 complaint cannot be held as time barred where cause of action is still continuing - &ousin# and
evelo(ment %oard, U.P., Luckno" 2% $r. &ari 1a+ S"aroo( %hatna#ar, 2++1(1 C!C 2'5 4%!%
--Continuity in cause of action pro2ed 0 Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2+1+(2 C!C (+2 3%C%
&Continuity of cause of action pro2ed - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - S.L. Khera 2% Chie*
Administrator, Pun+a) Ur)an ev. Authority, 2++'(2 C!C 21( Chd%
&Continuity of cause of action pro2ed in the case - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2++2(2 C!C
"2# 3%C%
&Correspondence about insurance claim went on e2en after filing of complaint - Claim cannot be re/ected as being
D$taleE - Li*e Insurance Cor(oration o* India 2% %.N. Sahay, 199#(1 C!C 25" >ihar
&Courts are e-pected not to legalise in/ustice on technical grounds - 6elay of 18 days condoned on sufficient
reasons - !yoti Prakash $ondal 2% %hu)nesh"ar Saha, 199"(1 C!C "9+ A%>engal
&6ate of pronouncement of order is the date of knowledge of order wherefrom time starts to run - &ousin# %oard
&aryana 2% &ousin# %oard Colony 5el*are Association, Kurukshetra, 199' C!C 1#2 )r%
--6elay 0 $ufficient reasons 0 6elay of 2+# days in filing of appeal 0 <easons gi2en for delay not satisfactorily
e-plained 0 6ismissal of appeal on ground of limitation /ustified 0 2+11(1 C!C 82 3%C%
&6elay cannot be condoned merely on the ground of ignorance of law - 1991 C!C 29 )r%
&6elay cannot be condoned unless a sufficient reason for delay is established - Ne" India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2%
r. 3asudha 3asanti ha#am"ar, 2+++(2 C!C 25' 6elhi
--6elay cannot be condoned where not satisfactory e-planation is gi2en - 199#(2 C!C "89 3%C%
&6elay due to administrati2e procedure: without e-planation: cannot be condoned - Su) ivisional O**icer v. %oota
Sin#h, 2++"(2 C!C 19# !b%
&6elay due to strike of employees - $ufficient cause for delay established - Pra*ul Kumar !ain 2% r. Alok Kumar
Sin#h, 199"(2 C!C 2(1 >ihar
&6elay in filing appeal cannot be condoned on the basis of procedural delay - elhi evelo(ment Authority 2% I.!.
$adan, 2++1(1 C!C 5'" 6elhi
&6elay in filing of appeal due to non-supply of copy of order to appellant - 6elay should be condoned -
International &ousin# evelo(ment Cor(. Ltd. 2% Suniti Pal, 1998(1 C!C 1"5 !b%
&6elay more than one year in filing re2ision without satisfactory e-planation - <e2ision dismissed as time barred
rightly - 2++"(1 C!C # 3%C%
18
&6elay of 1128 days due to fri2olous ci2il litigation - <eason not sufficient to condone the delay - 2++'(2 C!C
'"8 3%C%
&6elay of 115 days in filing appeal due to misplacement of necessary documents - 6elay condoned - $ilk*ed
throu#h its $ana#in# irector v. Kuldi( Sin#h 5alia, 2++5(1 C!C "+8 Chd%
&6elay of 12( days - <eason for delay too general - 6elay not satisfactorily e-plained: not condoned - 2++8('
C!C "( 3%C%
&6elay of 1'1 days in filing re2ision by L*C without sufficient reasons for delay - <e2ision dismissed as time
barred - 2++8(2 C!C 2(1 3%C%
--6elay of 1'8 days in filing appeal 0 3o sufficient cause 0 Condonation of delay not allowed 0 2+11(1 C!C #8#
3%C%
&6elay of 158 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay in absence of sufficient reasons declined - 1.K. ,rika v.
r. Karam+eet Sin#h, 2++#(2 C!C (29 )r%
&6elay of 1#8+ days in filing re2ision petition - 6elay can not be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause -
2++((1 C!C "+# 3%C%
--6elay of 1(2 days in filing re2ision petition 0 8ere plea of procedural delay is not sufficient to condone
a long delay 0 2+1+(1 C!C 5'" 3%C%
--6elay of 182 days in filing of appeal 0 3o satisfactory reason for condonation of delay gi2en 0 6ismissal of appeal
on round of limitation /ustified - 2+1+(2 C!C 2'9 3%C%
&6elay of 2 months in filing appeal due to official procedure - <eason for condonation of delay not sufficient -
Union o* India 2% 3i+ay Kumar Sin#hal, 2+++(1 C!C (' !b%
--6elay of 2-H years in filing complaint 0 *lliteracy is not sufficient ground to condone delay - 2++9(2 C!C
5#8 4%!%
--6elay of 22+ days in filing re2ision without gi2ing any application for condonation 0 <e2ision dismissed as time
barred - 2++9(1 C!C (2 3%C%
&6elay of 29 days in filing re2ision - $ufficient reason gi2en for delay - 6elay condoned - 2++"(2 C!C (+" $%C%
&6elay of ' months in deli2ery of insured letter - 6eficiency in ser2ice pro2ed - *t is wrong to say that complaint
cannot be filed after e-piry of ' months of cause of action - Union o* India 2% Shri Shayam Lal, 1998(2 C!C ##1 )%!%
--6elay of '+ days in filing appeal without any satisfactory e-planation - Condonation disallowed - Ashok Kumar
Ka(oor 2% $4s. 3idhata -nter(rises, 1991 C!C (+1 !b%
&6elay of '# days in filing of appeal - !lea of illness not supported by e2idence - 6elay cannot be condoned -
3andana %ansal .$rs./ 2% $4s !anta ,ravels, 2++2(2 C!C 2#+ Chd%
&6elay of '(8 days - Complainant=s contention that they spent lot of time in consultation and seeking instruction -
3o sufficient and good reason to condone the delay - 2++8(2 C!C ''# 3%C%
&6elay of " years from date of cause of action - Complaint dismissed as time barred - &aryana Ur)an
evelo(ment Authority 2% U(tron India Ltd., 199((1 C!C 5+8 )r%
&6elay of " years in filing claim petition after lodgement of claim with manufacturer - 3o acknowledgment of
liability pro2ed - !etition dismissed as time barred - 2++2(1 C!C 5"2 $%C%
&6elay of "1 days in filing appeal - 3o sufficient reason gi2en for delay - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred -
Accounts O**icer, O**ice o* the ,elecom istrict $ana#er 2% Sri S"amy Anantha Prakash, 2+++(1 C!C ""1 7%!%
&6elay of 51+ days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay in absence of sufficient reason declined - 2++"(1 C!C
1( 3%C%
--6elay of 588 days in filing appeal not satisfactorily e-plained 0 Condonation of delay denied - 2++9(1 C!C 1#
3%C%
&6elay of #1 days in filing appeal - 8isplacement of papers of case not sufficient reason for condonation of delay -
$aruti Udyo# Ltd. 2% r. . Su+ana, 2+++(1 C!C 21' 7%!%
--6elay of #12 days in filing re2ision petition 0 !rocedural delay cannot be made a ground for condonation
particularly when )467 has a legal cell to take a prompt action in dealing with the cases of allotment 0
2+1+(1 C!C #'' 3%C%
--6elay of #2 days mentioned in office order but in the main order: it was reported as barred by 2"+ days without
e-planation 0 5rder set aside 0 Case remanded - 2++9(1 C!C 581 $%C%
&6elay of #' days - 6ate wise details regarding processing of the case is not gi2en - 6elay cannot be condoned -
2++8(' C!C 1"( 3%C%
&6elay of #5 days in filing petition due to time spent at le2el of 2arious 9o2t% 6epartments - <eason not sufficient -
Condonation of delay declined - 2++#(1 C!C #1 3%C%
19
&6elay of #8( days in filing appeal - 6elay cannot be condoned without sufficient reasons - &ousin# %oard
&aryana 2% 1oo( Chand Pan"ar, 1999(2 C!C 2"9 Chd%
&6elay of ( years in filing the complaint - <elief declined - 199"(2 C!C 189 3%C%
--6elay of (2 days in filing re2ision petition not e-plained with satisfaction 0 Condonation of delay declined -
2++9(1 C!C #95 3%C%
&6elay of (5 days in filing an appeal - 6elay due to departmental process is not a sufficient reason for condonation
of delay - &aryana Ur)an evelo(ment Authority v. Kir(al Sin#h, 2++#(1 C!C #2 )r%
&6elay of (9 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay declined - LIC $utual 'und 1e(. )y its Chie* Secretary
2% 2anti Narasimhamurthy, 2+++(1 C!C "2' 7%!%
&6elay of 8' days in filing of appeal 0 <eason for delay was gi2en that file was mo2ing from table to table 0
<eason not sufficient 0 7ppeal dismissed as time barred - 2+1+(' C!C 9' 3%C%
&6elay of 91 days in filing appeal - 8ere legal opinion for delay is not a sufficient reason - akshin &aryana %i+li
3itran Ni#am Ltd. v. $ohan Lal, 2++8(2 C!C 1"' )r%
--6elay of 91 days in filing re2ision 0 Contention that re2ision was delayed due to mistake of clerk not acceptable -
2++9(1 C!C #' 3%C%
&6elay of about 5 year in filing complaint without any e-planation for delay - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred -
!eet Kaur %hatia .Smt./ v. Pun+a) Ur)an Plannin# and evelo(ment Authority, 2++5(1 C!C 225 Chd%
--6elay of more than 2 months in filing appeal - <eason for delay was gi2en as counsel failed to intimate receipt of
copy - <eason not satisfactory - 7ppeal time barred - 2++"(1 C!C 1# 3%C%
&6elay of one decade in filing complaint against bank about account - 8ere correspondence between parties cannot
e-tend limitation - United Commercial %ank 2% !. S. Preet, 1999(2 C!C 21# !b%
&6epartment spent time in consulting the 2arious offices - 6elay of 8" days in filing of appeal - 6elay cannot be
condoned - ,ele(hone istrict $ana#er, 'ero:e(ur 2% Shri %imal Kumar !ain, 199' C!C "5 !b%
&6ismissal of complaint on limitation is not proper when there is a continuing cause of action - Sukh+it Sin#h
Chandi v. $4s. S(ice ,elecom, 2++5(1 C!C 2#1 Chd%
&?arlier application for condonation of delay dismissed in default - $econd application for condonation not
maintainable - 1992 C!C 2"2 3%C%
&?ducational $er2ices - 5! refused to refund the fee despite repeated re.uests - Continuing cause of action -
Complaint not time barred - 2++8(' C!C 9" 7!
--?lectricity 0 $upplementary bills 0 <egular bill towards final payment raised after eight years 0 ,ime limitation of
three years is not applicable in raising supplementary demand - 2++9(1 C!C 228 3%C%
&?lectricity >oard raised a demand a bill of <s% 2:5#:"+" in year 2+++ 0 3otice for reco2ery issued in 2++8 0 ,ime
limit for reco2ery under law is 2 years 0 <eco2ery of arrears is barred by limitation - 2+1+(' C!C 59' )%!%
&?nhancement of compensation cannot be allowed on a time barred appeal - Cor(oration %ank 2% Smt. Nirmala
%ali#a, 199#(1 C!C "99 ;er%
&?2en instrumentality of $tate is bound by law of limitation - 3o body is abo2e law - Pun+a) Ur)an evelo(ment
Authority 2% $alkiat Sin#h %ala, 2++1(1 C!C 559 !b%
&?2en when no ob/ection against time barred complaint is taken in written statement it is the duty of Consumer
1orum to consider ob/ection of limitation by itself - 2++8(2 C!C #1 )r%
&1iling of Arit !etition: 7ppeals or $%L%!% do not operate to pre2ent the running of time - Complaint dismissed
being barred by limitation - r. Indira San#hi 2% Karnataka -lectricity %oard, 1991 C!C 2#" 3%C%
&1resh period of limitation would start from the date of acknowledgement of a liability - .P. &a:ra 2% Indian
Airlines, 199#(1 C!C 5# 6elhi
--9rie2ance relating to allotment of plot arose in 198# whereas complaint filed in 1992 0 ?-planation regarding lack
of knowledge not con2incing 0 Complaint dismissed as withdrawn 0 2+11(1 C!C '+ 3%C%
&)anding o2er of copy of order to third person found to be an after though - 6elay of "5 days in filing appeal
cannot be condoned - Cor(orate Product $ana#er, $.1.'. Ltd. 2% $ehar Sin#h, 2++"(1 C!C 1(8 !b%
--)467 allotted plot two times occupied by others 0 7ppeal filed with delay of 1" days without gi2ing satisfactory
reason for delay 0 7ppeal dismissed on ground of limitation and also on merit 0 2++9(' C!C #'5 3%C%
&*f no dilatory tactics are adopted by litigant: generally delay should be condoned - 1ita 1ani .$s./ v. Li*e
Insurance Cor(oration o* India, 2++5(1 C!C "'8 Chd%
&*gnorance of law is no e-cuse for seeking condonation of delay - Unit ,rust o* India 2% Saro+ 2oyal, 199"(1 C!C
#'( !b%
&*mpleadment of ?-cise 6epartment for refund of ?-cise 6uty after ' years of filing of complaint is illegal -
2++2(2 C!C "51 3%C%
2+
&*n the absence of separate application with affida2it for condonation of delay - 7ppeal is to be dismissed as time
barred - $ano+ Sinha 2% Lohia $achines Ltd., 199#(1 C!C 5+# >ihar
--*n the matter of deposit made in a financial institution cause of action would accrue only date of demand and not
from date of last deposit - 3.P. avis 2% Karuna ,rust, 1e(td. )y $ana#in# Partner, 2++1(2 C!C 28# ;er%
&*ncident gi2ing rise to claim occurred on 22%%2++2 but claim was repudiated on 22%2%2++( wherefrom limitation
period should ha2e been computed 0 Complaint filed on %1+%2++9 held to be time barred - 2+1+(' C!C 2#" 3%C%
--*nsurance 0 *nsured tobacco stock caught fire 0 Criminal proceedings against appellant dismissed in 1992 0 Claim
petition filed in 199( 0 !etition barred by limitation which was 2 years u@s 2"-7 of the 7ct 0 2++9(' C!C 1 $%C%
&*nsurance claim can be repudiated if not filed within a period as stipulated in the *nsurance !olicy - Ne" India
Assurance Co. Ltd. 2% %ri+endra Sin#h Sarna, 1998(1 C!C 111 4%!%
&*nsurance claim filed after a long period of '+ years when C! 7ct was not in force- Complaint dismissed as time
barred - 2+1+(' C!C 2(" 3%C%
&*nsurance claim filed beyond 12 months prescribed for claim under the policy - Complaint dismissed as barred by
time - arshan Kumar Puri 2% National Insurance Co. Ltd., 199((1 C!C 5+2 )r%
&*nsurance claim filed within 12 months as pro2ided under the condition of insurance policy - <epudiation of claim
by insurer un/ustified - 2+++(1 C!C 58' 3%C%
&*nsurance claim filed within limitation from date of acknowledgement - Claim held to be within time - Li*e
Insurance Cor(oration o* India 2% Charan+it Kaur, 2++1(1 C!C "" !b%
&*nsured died in 199+ complaint filed in 1999 - Complaint dismissed as time barred - <epudiation of claim upheld
- 2urdee( Kaur 2% $ana#in# irector Pearls 2reen 'orests Ltd., 2+++(1 C!C 525 !b%
&*t is not correct that complaint against defecti2e house should be filed within si- months under the 6%6%7% 7ct
from the date of possession - 199"(1 C!C '9" 3%C%
&Lapse of ' years and more than ( months in filing of complaint - Complaint dismissed as time barred - &aryana
Ur)an evelo(ment Authority v. %ri# .1etd./ Karan Sin#h, 2++8(2 C!C 2+ )r%
&Last date of limitation was holiday - 7ppeal filed on ne-t following day is not barred by limitation - I.C.I.C.I.
%ank Limited v. 2urdial Sin#h, 2++5(1 C!C #(" !b%
&Latest letter demanding possession of )467 plot is dt% 12%1+%2++2 in the se.uence of e2ents - Complaint filed
within two years of latest letter is within limitation though allotment was made in 1985 - 1a+ ulari 2u(ta 2% &aryana
Ur)an evelo(ment Authority, 2++'(2 C!C 2+# Chd%
&Law of limitation not e-pressly applicable to consumer proceeding - *ts principles are applied in the interest of
/ustice and e.uity - 1992 C!C '9" 3%C%
Limitation 0 Complainant kept mum for si- years in a case of fraudulent withdrawal from their accounts 0 Complaint
dismissed as time barred - 2+1+(' C!C 2"5 3%C%
&Limitation 7ct is applicable to proceedings under Consumer 7ct - Complaint filed after delay of " years and "
months not maintainable - S. Kumar 2% ,he $ana#in# irector Air India, 1991 C!C "(# 6elhi
&Limitation 7ct not applicable to Consumer 7ct - ,ime spent in remaining the complaint pending in 3ational
Commission cannot be e-cluded - C. P. Phili( 2% Pulimoottil -nter(rises, 1991 C!C "+5 ;erala
&Limitation cannot be condoned on the application of Counsel=s Clerk - 1991 C!C 525 3%C%
&Limitation cannot be condoned without sufficient cause for delay is shown - Prem 5ood 2% Ne" India Assurance
Co., 1999(2 C!C '82 4%!%
--Limitation cannot be e-tended by presentation of means of allotment of alternati2e plot - Narne -states Private
Ltd. 2% Lt. Col. K.3. 2o(al, 2++'(2 C!C ##1 7%!%
&Limitation does e-pire where cause of action is in continuity - $ahalakshmi Land and 'inance Com(any
.Private/ Ltd. 2% 1am Prakash 2u(ta, 1999(1 C!C #85 6elhi
--Limitation does not start from date of sale of machinery but from the date of repairs - 2+1+(2 C!C 12# 3%C%
&Limitation e-pired during summer 2acation - 7ppeal not filed e2en on opening day - Condonation of delay
declined - Alka 2u(ta v. Im(rovement ,rust, %atala, 2++"(2 C!C 2+5 !b%
&Limitation for cause of action accrued before 7mendment 7ct: 199' is ' years - Krishan Ka(ur 2% $4s. &aryana
-m(orium, 1999(1 C!C '+9 6elhi
&Limitation for compensation for damage to shipped 2ehicle is one year under 7ct: 1925 - $ec% 2"-7 of C%!% 7ct
not applicable - Complaint filed after one year dismissed as time barred - $ariamma Narendranathan 2% Shi((in#
Cor(oration o* India, 1998(2 C!C #"' ;erala
&Limitation for complaint starts from date of repudiation of insurance claim - Neel Kamal Pa(er $ills Pvt. Ltd. 2%
Ne" India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2+++(1 C!C 19# 8aha%
--Limitation for filing a complaint starts from the date of cause of action - 2++9(1 C!C '#8 3%C%
21
&Limitation for filing an appeal against order of 6istrict 1orum starts from the date of deli2ery of copy of order and
not from its pronouncement - 1995(2 C!C 2(( $%C%
&Limitation for filing an appeal would start from the date of communication of order passed by 6istt% 1orum - 1a+
Kumar 2% Kala 3ihar Co-O(. 2rou( &ousin# Society, 199((1 C!C 5#" 6elhi
&Limitation for filing complaint for insurance claim was ' years before the 7mending 7ct: 199' i%e% 18%#%199' -
199((2 C!C 1 $%C%
&Limitation for lis e-pired in 1985 - !ayment of share made se2en years thereafter - Complaint is time barred -
P*i:er Ltd. o* %om)ay 2% &ansra+ Sin#h %arak, 199' C!C 815 )r%
&Limitation for reco2ery of balance of electricity arrears cannot be limited to period of ' years - $unici(al
Council, 2urdas(ur v. Pun+a) State -lectricity %oard, 2++#(1 C!C 2+8 !b%
&Limitation in insurance claim cases starts from the date of settlement or repudiation of claim - Li*e Insurance
Cor(oration o* India 2% Smt. Parkash Kaur, 199((1 C!C 1## !b%
&Limitation is ' years if cause of action arose before 18%#%199' - *t is 2 years where cause of action arose after
18%#%199' - State %ank o* India 2% !amal $ohideen Pa((a, 1998(2 C!C #9( ,%3%
&Limitation is three years for specific performance of a contract - 1992 C!C "'9 6elhi
&Limitation of 2 years starts from the date when insurance claim is repudiated - 2+++(1 C!C 88 !b%
&Limitation of one year gi2en in policy cannot o2erride the period of two years prescribed under C% !% 7ct for filing
a Complaint - 2++5(2 C!C 2+ 3%C%
--Limitation of one year in Carriage of 9oods by $ea 7ct o2errides period of 2 years gi2en in Consumer !rotection
7ct for loss of shipped goods - $ariamma Narendranathan 2% Shi((in# Cor(oration o* India, 1999(2 C!C 282 ;er%
&Limitation once started from date of receipt of copy of order cannot be re2i2ed subse.uently by taking its certified
- 2++'(1 C!C #18 3%C%
&Limitation period shortened by 7mending 7ct - <easonable time of ' months allowed to the party to file
complaint under the old law of limitation - 1enu Sa6ena .$rs./ 2% S.P. !akhan"al, 199"(2 C!C '5+ 6elhi
&Limitation prescribed under a $pecial 7ct o2errides the pro2isions of $ec% 2"-7 of C%!% 7ct -
$ariamma Narendranathan 2% Shi((in# Cor(oration o* India, 1998(2 C!C #"' ;erala
--Limitation runs from the date when a fraud is disco2ered by complainant - 1991 C!C 225 6elhi
--Limitation starts from date of the cause of action - 2++9(1 C!C""' 3%C%
&Limitation starts from the date of knowledge of order within the meaning of $ection 15 of the Consumer 7ct -
$arikkar .$otors/ Ltd. 2% $rs. $ary Poulose, 1991 C!C "+8
&Limitation starts from the date of order and not from date of receipt of order - 1992 C!C #+9 )r%
&Limitation starts from the date when cause of action is made known to complainant - 2++'(2 C!C '95 ;er%
&Limitation starts from the date when order is signed by member of 1orum and date of signing is taken as date of
pronouncement - Anvarul &ak v. Avdesh Kumar, 2++5(1 C!C 1+2 4%!%
&Limitation starts from the date when the insurer denies or repudiates the claim - 1998(2 C!C 1#8 !b%
&Limitation starts running from the date of communication of order - 1998(2 C!C 89 6elhi
&Limitation starts to run from the latest order of repudiation of claim - 199#(1 C!C 2+1 3%C%
&Limitation would start from the date of acknowledgement of liability - ,. 1a#havachari 2% $4s. 1udra
Constructions and -states, 199#(1 C!C '1# ,%3%
&Limitation would start to run from the date when claim is denied by opposite party - Su) ivisional O**icer,
&.S.-.%. 2% 1amesh Kumar, 199((1 C!C 2(8 )r%
&Litigant cannot be allowed gross abuse of process of C%!% 7ct to file baseless complaint - 2++'(2 C!C 5'1 3%C%
&8atter stayed by )igh Court - Cause of action would arise after 2acation of stay - Krishna 2% elhi evelo(ment
Authority, 1995(1 C!C "+1 6elhi
&8ere deposit of balance of plot price does not gi2e a fresh cause of action - Complaint being time barred from
date of auction is liable to be dismissed - State o* Pun+a) throu#h Administrator 2% Kasturi Lal, 1998(2 C!C "'# !b%
--8ere knowledge of sur2eyors report is not sufficient for raising the point of limitation - 1995(1 C!C "5# 3%C%
&8ere writing letter after dismissal of complaint for return of ad2ocate fee does not gi2e fresh cause of action-
$ohan Chouksey 2% 1akesh A##ar"al, 2++'(1 C!C '55 8%!%
&8ere writing to telephone authorities for reconnection cannot keep the cause ali2e - 199"(1 C!C 1"+ 3%C%
&8ere writting of some letters to insurer cannot e-tend the period of limitation - Su(ermen9s 'ood Products .$4s./
2% National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2++'(1 C!C 1#( !b%
&8isleading Court by deliberate attempt - Condonation of delay declined - *nland <oad ,ransport 2% 8@s% 8ehra
>rothers: 2++"(2 C!C 5' !b%
22
&3o action can be taken on a time barred complaint petition - 1992 C!C "'5 3%C%
--3o application for condonation of delay filed 0 Complaint filed much after e-piry of two years 0
Complaint rightly dismissed as time barred 0 2+1+(1 C!C 25( 3%C%
&3o concession can be gi2en to a statutory body in condonation of delay - Ludhiana Im(rovement ,rust 2% Kasturi
Lal Chadha, 1998(2 C!C 551 !b%
--3o con2incing: e2idence produced to challenge a concurrent finding of 1ora below who dismissed complaint as
time barred 0 7ppeal dismissed - 2+1+(2 C!C 551 3%C%
&3o e-planation gi2en nor any affida2it filed to seek condonation of delay - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred -
&aryana A#ro Industries Cor(oration Ltd. 2% 3irender Pal Sin#h, 1991 C!C 1+2 )r%
&3o limitation is prescribed under C! 7ct for filing application for e-ecution of an order - 7pplication after '+
days is maintainable - 2++8(' C!C '+( 3%C%
&3o reason gi2en for delay in filing appeal beyond 2 years - 6ismissed as barred by time - inesh Kumar Sharma
2% Central %ank o* India, throu#h its Senior %ranch $ana#er, 2++2(2 C!C 528 Chd%
&3o satisfactory cause gi2en to e-plain delay of more than # months - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred - Ne" India
Assurance Co. Ltd. 2% $4s. Shimla $andi 2oods ,rans(ort Com(any .1e#d./, 2++"(1 C!C '82 Chd%
--3o satisfactory reason gi2en for filing complaint after lapse of # years from the date of cause of action 0
Complaint dismissed as time barred 0 2+1+(1 C!C #85 3%C%
&5b/ection against limitation not raised before 1orum - 5b/ection cannot be raised at appellate stage - Satish
Chandra A#ar"al v. %ranch $ana#er, United India Insurance Com(any Ltd., 2++5(2 C!C 2"" <a/%
--5fficial procedure and fault of ad2ocate gi2en as reason for delay of 2'# days in filing re2ision 0 <eason
not satisfactory - Condonation of delay denied 0 2+1+(1 C!C 15+ 3%C%
--5peration of eye was performed in 1998 0 Complaint filed in 2++2 after four years 0 7pplication not filed for
condonation of delay 0 Complaint barred by time - 2+1+(2 C!C "1# 4ttrakhand
&5rder not legally sustainable - <elief should not be denied on technical grounds of limitation - 2eneral $ana#er,
,elecom 2% $4s 2urdarshan Sin#h Somal, 2+++(1 C!C 1++ !b%
&5riginal contract entered in 19## and renewed in 198' - Complaint regarding 2iolation filed in 199" is hopelessly
time barred - Sur+it A##ar"al .$rs./ 2% $4s. 2reater elhi Planners .P/ Ltd., 199((1 C!C '95 )r%
&!articulars regarding arri2al of consignment not gi2en - Complaint not time barred in the absence of reckoning of
period of limitation - N. handa(ani 2% Korean Air, 2++1(1 C!C '28 ,%3%
&!endency of in2estigations in the bank cannot be a ground for condonation of delay in consumer proceedings -
$rs. A#nes . $ello 2% ,he -6ecutive irector, Canara %ank, 199' C!C "11 ;ar%
&!eriod for filing a claim against municipality for committing negligence is 2 years under 7ct 82 of Limitation 7ct
- 1999(2 C!C ""2 $%C%
--!eriod for filing complaint against insurance claim is three years - 199' C!C "1( 3%C%
&!eriod of limitation beyond two years cannot be e-tended under Carriage by 7ir 7ct: 19(2 read with $% 2"-7 of
C%!% 7ct - 2++'(2 C!C 22+ 3%C%
&!eriod of limitation for filing a complaint before 18%#%199' was three years - Complaint held not barred by time -
2++#(1 C!C 2'2 3%C%
--!eriod of limitation which is shorter than that prescribed under statutory period of Limitation 7ct can be
prescribed by parties consenting for enforcement of an insurance contract 0 2+1+(1 C!C (5 $%C%
&!eriod of three years limitation would start when cause of action by denial of payment of bonds had accrued -
2++((1 C!C 599 3%C%
&!eriod spent between filing of claim before consumer forum and disposal of matter by the highest court should be
e-cluded when ci2il court is approached for relief - 2++#(2 C!C ##" $%C%
&!etition for claim made after three years of occurance - !etition is manifestly barred by limitation - 1992 C!C 1"
3%C%
&!etitioner contended that complaint was time barred from the date of final settlement of amount in .uestion -
<espondent@complainant recei2ing payment subse.uently - Limitation would start from date of last payment - 2++#(2
C!C (11 3%C%
&!lea of hiring of ser2ice for commercial purpose not raised in time barred complaint - Complaint dismissed -
2++1(2 C!C '#( 3%C%
--!lea of limitation not taken at earlier stage 0 ,he same cannot be permitted to be raised after 8 years for
the first time 0 2+1+(1 C!C 291 3%C%
2'
&!lea of limitation not taken at earlier stage cannot be allowed to be raised at appellate stage - National Insurance
Co. Ltd. 2% !a#dish Prasad $aurya, 199#(1 C!C #'2 4%!%
&!lea of limitation was not taken before 6istt% 1orum and $tate Commission the 28%+2%2++2 was date of arising of
cause of action: complaint filed on '1%+1%2++5 cannot be held to be barred by limitation u@s% 2"7 of C%!% 7ct - 2++((2
C!C ""2 3%C%
&!oint of limitation not raised at preliminary stage - 1orum did not consider ob/ection of limitation - 8ay be
considered at the time of final hearing - 5rder upheld - 2reen Channel Chit 'unds and 'inance Com(any 2% $rs. Pa(il
!ain, 2++"(1 C!C 5+ 6elhi
--!ossession of plot deli2ered in 199'-9# 0 Complaint filed in 2+++ 0 Complaint dismissed as barred by
limitation 0 2+1+(1 C!C 5"" 3%C%
&!resumption of death drawn on 22-1-1989 whereas complaint was filed in Bune: 1992 - Complaint barred by time
e2en under old law - %ranch $ana#er, L.I.C. 2% Savitri evi, 2+++(2 C!C (+9 4%!%
&!rinciples of Limitation 7ct are applicable to the proceedings initiated under Consumer !rotection 7ct - 1995(2
C!C 2+9 3%C%
&!rinciples of Limitation 7ct are fully applicable to consumer proceedings - 199' C!C #2# !b%
&!rinciples of Limitation 7ct: are directly applicable to the Consumer !rotection 7ct - 199' C!C 1'" )r%
--!roceedings being in continuity: .uestion of complaint being time barred does not arise 0 2+1+(1 C!C
25" 3%C%
--!roceedings not to be obstructed on the plea of limitation by a party: when such party is guilty of a malicious act -
$ike9s .P/ Ltd. 2% State %ank o* %ikaner and !ai(ur, 1995(1 C!C "#5 3%C%
&!ro2ision of Consumer 7ct are go2erned by Limitation 7ct - Pra)hat %a# 'actory 2% United India Insurance,
1991 C!C "'+ 6elhi
&!ro2isions of amended $ection 2"-7 of the Consumer !rotection 7ct ha2e prospecti2e effect - United India
Insurance Com(any Ltd 2% Asha 2olden ,rans(ort Co., 1995(1 C!C '+2 9u/%
&!ro2isions of Carriage of 9oods by $ea 7ct are not applicable to consumer proceedings for purpose of limitation -
2+1+(' C!C 525 3%C%
&!ro2isions of Consumer !rotection 7ct o2erride the pro2isions of a $pecial 7ct on law of limitation - 199#(1
C!C ##5 3%C%
&!ro2isions of $ec% 1" of Limitation 7ct not applicable to consumer proceedings - $ohd. Sha*ee; 2% Pradee(
Kumar, 1999(2 C!C #'9 4%!%
&!ro2isions of $ection ' of Limitation 7ct are applicable to consumer proceedings - Cause of action arose in 19("
- Complaint filed in 1992 is hopelessly time barred- Kulvinder Kaur .Smt./ 2% Pun+a) &ousin# Ur)an evelo(ment
Authority, 199((1 C!C 198 Chd%
&Juestion of bar of limitation does not arise where there is continuing cause of action - ,ilak 1a+ 2% &aryana
School -ducation %oard, %hi"ani, 1992 C!C #1 )r%
&Juestion of e-clusion of time spent in obtaining certified copy of order does not arise when application for copy
was filed after statutory period of '+ days - 5est %en#al State -lectricity %oard 2% Archana Chakra)orty, 199#(2 C!C
1'1 Aest >engal
&<ailway department filed appeal with "5( day=s delay - 6elay not e-plained 7ppeal dismissed as time barred -
Union o* India, Northern 1ail"ay 2% $4s. 1ohtak Khadi Ashram, 1998(1 C!C ""8 )r%
--<eason for condonation of delay of 12(+ days not sufficient 0 Condonation of delay denied 0 2++9(' C!C 1+5
3%C%
&<eason for delay was gi2en death of counsel - 7ppeal could be filed through another counsel - Condonation of
delay declined - Pearl International ,ours and ,ravels Ltd. 2% Smt. Ka+ol i6it, 2++"(1 C!C 1#' Chd%
&<eason for delay was gi2en that 7d2ocate did not inform about fate of the case in time 0 <eason not satisfactory 0
Condonation of delay refused - 2+1+(' C!C '5 3%C%
&<elief claimed after the e-piry of limitation law cannot be granted to a claimant - 199"(2 C!C 19+ 3%C%
&<ental bill raised towards 2++2 when !>K >oard remo2ed for non-payment - Complaint filed in 2++' not barred
by limitation - %.S.N.L. v. %en#al 1o"in# Clu), 2++#(1 C!C 9+ A%>%
&<eopening of old and stale matters is against public policy when such matters ha2e been finally settled - 1995(2
C!C 2+9 3%C%
&<epudiation of claim was ordered on 2+-9-199+ - Complaint filed in 5ctober: 1992 - Complaint is not barred by
time - <efund of premium ordered - ,echnical Associates Industries Ltd. .$4s./ 2% Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 199#(2
C!C 118 6elhi
2"
--<e2ision filed with a delay of 218 days 0 7llegedly counsel did not inform about decision in time 0 ,his
is a usual e-cuse 0 Condonation of delay declined 0 2+1+(1 C!C 2+" 3%C%
--<e2ision filed with delay of 2(5 days without gi2ing sufficient reasons for delay 0 Condonation of delay
declined 0 2+1+(1 C!C "'1 3%C%
--<e2ision filed with delay of #5 days against order passed in appeal which was barred by delay of 11#(
days 0 Condonation on ground of official negligence declined 0 2+1+(1 C!C (25 3%C%
--<e2ision petition filed with delay of 2(5 days in the absence of any con2incing reasons for condonation
of delay was liable to be dismissed 0 2+1+(1 C!C 51' 3%C%
&<igours of Limitation 7ct and other ci2il laws are not applicable to C! 7ct - Parkash Lal Arora v. $4s Saichem
La)oratories Pvt. Ltd.: 2++((2 C!C '29 )%!%
--<unning of - 5nce time of limitation has started to run: it does not stop to run by writing a letter on the sub/ect
matter of dispute - Sun)eam &otels .P/ Ltd. .$4s./ 2% Union o* India, 2+++(2 C!C #'2 Chd%
&<unning of time - <unning of limitation would not be stopped merely because a party was not present on the date
of the order - &industan Com(uters Ltd. 2% Amar+eet Paul, 199' C!C 1# !b%
&$ale Claim - Complainant seeking relief after ten years of cause of action - Complaint being time barred not
entertainable - 1992 C!C 525 3%C%
&$ettlement of an insurance claim should not take more than '@" months otherwise it would be a deficiency in
ser2ice - 199((2 C!C "85 3%C%
&$ite remained unde2eloped for long - *t is a continuing cause of action - Complaint not to be dismissed as time
barred - !.3.2. 'inance Ltd. .$4s./ 2% 1a+ Kumari, 1998(2 C!C 51# !b%
&$poil of academic carrier of student is no defence in a time barred complaint -%oard o* School -ducation 2% 1a+
Kumar, 1995(2 C!C '88 )r%
&$tale claims not to be entertained under the Consumer !rotection 7ct - 199"(1 C!C 152 3%C%
&$tarting point - Limitation in cases of house construction would start from date of deli2ery of possession of flat-
$ohan Umarye 2% $4s $adhavi Investment and ,radin# Pvt. Ltd., 2++2(1 C!C 222 9oa
&$tate Commission dismissing appeal as barred by time in its discretionary power - *mpugned order not open to
challenge - Su)odh Ka(oor 2% r. 1.1. Sharma, 1998(2 C!C "'" 3%C%
&$tate Commission is not a court but a .uasi /udicial authority - Limitation 7ct not applicable - $. !ayakara v.
ivisional $ana#er, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2++((1 C!C 2'8 ;ar%
&$tate Commission not to entertain a belated appeal without condoning the delay - 1992 C!C "+" 3%C%
&$tate or a Corporation is on no different footing than a pri2ate litigant for the purpose of limitation - -state
O**icer, &aryana Ur)an evelo(ment Authority, &issar 2% Shri 1attan Sin#h, 1991 C!C ##1 )r
&$ubse.uent showing continuity of time - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 2++8(1 C!C #81 3%C%
&$ufficient cause - Lack of knowledge of order cannot be pleaded when the same is passed in the presence of the
counsel - 199"(2 C!C 58 !b%
&$ufficient cause - ,he fact that appellant is a big organisation is no ground for condonation of delay - elhi 3idut
%oard 2% 2o(i 1am, 2++1(1 C!C #5+ 6elhi
&$ufficient cause of delay was made out in filing the appeal - Condonation of delay allowed - 3i(ul $otors Pvt.
Ltd. 2% Nirmal %ahree, 1991 C!C 511 )r%
&$urrender 0 <efund after making 1+G deduction 0 !etitioner changed his mind and prayed for retaining plot 0
<e.uest disallowed 0 Complaint filed for restoration after three years is time barred - 2+1+(' C!C "18 3%C%
&,echnical plea of limitation not raised before 6istrict 1orum - Cannot be raised before appellate authority -
2eneral $ana#er, -astern 1ail"ays 2% Smt. $alti 2u(ta, 2+++(1 C!C #(" 8%!%
&,erms mentioned in *nsurance policy for filing claim within #+ days does not o2erride the limitation of two years
under the 7ct - Sikri -6(orts Pvt. Ltd. 2% Ne" India Assurance Co., 199((2 C!C #'8 !b%
--,hough Limitation 7ct is not applicable to C% !% 7ct - *t is principles are applicable to it - 1995(2 C!C 82 3%C%
--,ime consumed in consumer proceedings initiated at wrong place 0 Complaint allowed to be filed before
appropriate 1orum 0 >enefits of time consumed in wrong proceedings should be gi2en to petitioner 0 2+1+(1
C!C 2(' 3%C%
&,ime e-pire in 199+ - $ubse.uent notice issued in 199# cannot make the limitation re-run - Complaint barred by
time - 2++'(2 C!C #' 3%C%
&,ime of limitation starts from the date when the patient feels aggrie2ed - 2++"(2 C!C #"# 3%C%
&,ime spent in ci2il litigation cannot be e-cluded for computation of period in filing a complaint - 199#(1 C!C 1(
3%C%
25
&,ime spent in consumer proceeding - >enefit of $ection 1" of Limitation 7ct allowed as complaint was not
entertainable - handha Lal 3erma 2% San+ay A#ar"al, 2++"(1 C!C 12" 8%!%
&,ime spent in consumer proceedings - >enefit should be gi2en under $ection 1" of Limitation in filing a ci2il suit
- Ashok Leyland 'inance Com(any Ltd. 2% 2okran Sin#h %adauriya, 2++'(2 C!C 1"1 8%!%
&,ime spent in consumer proceedings - >enefit u@s% 1" of limitation for approaching ci2il court: should be gi2en -
Ne" India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2% %ri+endra Sin#h, 2++1(2 C!C 8( 8%!%
&,ime spent in consumer proceedings should be e-cluded for seeking relief from a Ci2il Court - 1995(2 C!C 2
$%C%
--,ime spent in consumer proceedings was allowed to be e-cluded by a2ailing section 1" of the Limitation 7ct for
seeking relief from Ci2il Court 0 2+11(1 C!C 58+ $%C%
&,ime spent in consumer proceedings where complaint was wrongly filed - >enefit of time spent in such
proceedings to be gi2en to complainant - 2++8(2 C!C 15 3%C%
&,ime spent in Court ha2ing no /urisdiction should be e-cluded in 2iew of section 1" of Limitation 7ct - 2++8('
C!C 2#8 3%C%
&,ime spent in earlier proceedings should be e-cluded for the purpose of limitation - 2++8(2 C!C (+' 3%C%
&,ime spent in )igh Court which directed to seek remedy to appropriate forum - ,ime spent to be high Court
should be e-cluded - 6elay condoned - 1am Saroo( v. Chandi#arh &ousin# %oard, 2++8(' C!C '8( 3%C%
&,ime spent in legal consultation - 3ot a sufficient ground for condonation of delay - P.S.-.%. v. !a#dish Lal
$alhan, 2++"(2 C!C 12# !b%
&,ime spent in 5fficial correspondence is not 2alid reason for condonation of delay - Chhattis#arh State
-lectricity %oard A((ellant v. han Sin#h, 2++5(1 C!C '(' Chhattisgarh
&,ime spent in re2iew: cannot be e-cluded - Union o* India etc. 2% $4s. Nadu Shah Ka(oor and Sons, 199' C!C
"(1 !b%
&,ime spent in writ petition - !etitioner directed to approach appropriate 1orum - >enefit of time spent in )igh
Court should be gi2en to complainant - Sri Arun 1oy 2% 7onal $ana#er, U.C.O. %ank, 1998(2 C!C 21 A% >engal
--,ime starts running from the date when order of 1ora is communicated to the parties - Li*e Insurance Cor(oration
o* India 2% 1a+inder Kumar Sharma, 1999(2 C!C 8+ !b%
&,ime will start to run not from date of order but from date of communication of order - 3ishnath Keser"ani 2%
Luckno" -lectricity Su((ly Undertakin# throu#h its -6ecutive -n#ineer, 2+++(2 C!C 2(# 4%!%
&,ime would start not from date of occurrence of loss but from date of repudiation of insurance claim - 199((2
C!C 21+ 3%C%
&,ime would start to run from the date of refusal of settlement of insurance claim - 199#(2 C!C 91 3%C%
&,ime would start to run from the date of repudiation of liability by opposite party - 199#(2 C!C '22 3%C%
&,ime would to run from the date when deficiency in ser2ice is noticed - Aruna Sin#la 2% Onida $a#netics Ltd.,
1998(1 C!C 529 !b%
&,ractor purchased in 1989 - Complaint alleging defect therein filed in 1992 - Complaint dismissed being barred
by limitation- La6mi Narain 2% $4s. %ritish $otor Car Co. Ltd., 199#(1 C!C #+( )r%
&,ruck alleged to be defecti2e was purchased in 198# - Complaint filed in 1991 - Claim is time barred - <epair of
wear and tear in 1989 does not gi2e fresh cause of action - 199' C!C (1+ 3%C%
&,ruck alleged to be defecti2e was purchased in 199+ - Complaint filed in 199' is to be dismissed on ground of
limitation - Kesar Sin#h 2andhi and Sons 2% Sim(son and Com(any Ltd., 1995(2 C!C '"+ B%C;%
&Fehicle in .uestion hypothicated with bank which sold it for reco2ery of loan amount - Complainant has no locus
standi to file complaint - 2++5(1 C!C 2(' 3%C%
&Fehicle was purchased on (%2%199" - 6eficiency reported by registered post on 1'%8%199( - Complaint filed on
1+%9%199( is within limitation - $ahindra and $ahindra Limited .$4s./ v. r. Uma(ati U(adyay: 2++"(2 C!C 598 4%!%
&Fehicles purchased in 19(9 and 1991 much before the 7ct came into force - Claim for manufacturing defect is
highly belated: cannot be accepted - 1992 C!C "+ 3%C%
&Ahen cause of action is in continuity: complaint is not barred by limitation - 2++5(2 C!C 1#2 3%C%
&Ahen limitation is e-tended in 2iew of subse.uent e2ents - Complaint cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation
- 2++8(1 C!C '9+ 3%C%
&Ahen there is continuing cause of action petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation - 199#(1 C!C
2+5 3%C%
&Ahen there is continuity in cause of action - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - 1. Choodamani v. !.
&emalatha, 2++((2 C!C ""' ,%3%
2#
--Ahen there is recurring cause of action limitation starts from date of knowledge of latest cause - 1a+asthan
&ousin# %oard v. %ha#ya 1am, 2++"(2 C!C 1# <a/%
--Ahere there is continuity of cause of action - Complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred - %ri+ $ohan 2u(ta v.
Neera+ 2u(ta, 2++5(2 C!C 29( Chd%
&Arong ad2ice by counsel - 3ot a sufficient reason for condonation of delay - Su(erintendent o* Post O**ices,
Allaha)ad 2% Aninash 2u(ta, 1999(1 C!C 529 4%!%
&Arong ad2ice of lawyer is no ground for condonation of delay - Karnail Sin#h v. Sri ashmesh Academy: 2++5(1
C!C "8# !b%
--Arong legal notice and administrati2e reasons are not sufficient to condone delay of 2"# days in filing
appeal 0 )owe2er: delay is condoned to do /ustice to the appellant 2ictim of wrong decision - 2++9(1 C!C5++
3%C%
Limitation e'tension - !eriod of limitation of two years can be e-tended with reference to $ection 2"-7 of
the C%!% 7ct - 2++'(1 C!C '1 3%C%
Limitation for claim - 7 clause in policy prescribing a period of ' months from disclaimer held to be legally
2alid and not in 2iolation of $ection 28 of Contract 7ct - 2++1(1 C!C 1'+ 3%C%
&7 claim generally should be settled within ' months of cause of action - Nishikon -nter(rises .$4s./ v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2++"(2 C!C 2#2 4ttaranchal
Limitation for revision - 3o period is prescribed under the 7ct - )owe2er re2ision should be filed within 9+
days - 2++'(2 C!C 8+ 3%C%
&,hough no period is prescribed under the 7ct a re2ision should be filed within a period of 9+ days - 2++2(2 C!C
"'+ 3%C%
Limitation for settlement - 7 period of # months is reasonable for settlement of claim after incident -
199((2 C!C '8# 3%C%
Limitation period 0 Complaint filed within two years 0 *t cannot be pleaded that complaint should be
filed within 1 year from cause of action in 2iew of section 2"7 of the 7ct - 2++9(1 C!C "1 3%C%
Limitation starting - Cause of action arises from the date of issuance of electric bill when period of limitation
starts to run - S..O., Pun+a) State -lectric %oard 2% Shamsher Sin#h, 1999(1 C!C 25' !b%
Long distance - 7pplication for copy of order gi2en after '+ days of the order - Condonation of delay not
granted on ground of long distance - 2++'(2 C!C 81 3%C%
*aturity payment - Complaints regarding payment on maturity filed beyond ' years of cause of action 0 !lea
of conformity of cause of action repelled 0 Complaints filed beyond limitation not maintainable 0 2+11(1 C!C #5+ 3%C%
*isplacement of order - 6elay of 1"# days in filing of appeal - 8isplacement of certified copy of order is
no ground to condone delay - 2++5(1 C!C (' Chd%
*istake of clerk - 6elay of 91 days in filing re2ision 0 Contention that re2ision was delayed due to mistake of
clerk not acceptable 0 2++9(1 C!C #' 3%C%
*istaken advice - Arong ad2ice by counsel - 3ot a sufficient reason to condonation of delay - Su(erintendent
o* Post O**ices, Allaha)ad 2% Aninash 2u(ta, 1999(1 C!C 529 4%!%
+on receipt of order $ 6elay of 588 days in appeal 0 8ere contention of non receipt of order not sufficient
for condonation of delay 0 2++9(1 C!C 1# 3%C%
+ullity - 7n order granting relief to complainant for non- prosecution of case by respondent is not nullity - 7ppeal
against order is go2erned by law of limitation - 1998(2 C!C "'" 3%C%
Officials fault - 6elay of (( days in filing appeal - ,ime spent in official consultation not sufficient ground for
condonation - Pun+a) School -ducation %oard, $ohali 2% &ar(al Sin#h, 2++'(1 C!C 1"( !b%
Officials negligence - <e2ision filed with delay of #5 days against order passed in appeal which was barred
by delay of 11#( days 0 Condonation on ground of official negligence declined 0 2+1+(1 C!C (25 3%C%
Official procedure 0 6elay of 2"' days in filing of re2ision petition 0 !rocedural delay cannot be taken as a
2alid reason for condonation of delay - 2+1+(2 C!C '+ 3%C%
--6elay in filing of appeal due to official process - 3o sufficient reason for condonation of delay - ?ach day=s delay
must be e-plained - 2++1(2 C!C 2"5 !b%
--!rocedure delaying filing of appeal cannot be made a ground for condonation of delay - 2+1+(' C!C 9' 3%C%
2(
--7ppeal filed with delay of "(+ days without sufficient cause 0 5fficial process as cause of delay not con2incing 0
7ppeal dismissed as barred by time - 2+1+(' C!C 5+2 3%C%
--5fficial procedure as cause of delay was not sufficient reason for condonation of delay unless principle of Deach
day=s delayE to be e-plained is followed 0 Fague plea not acceptable 0 2+11(1 C!C 18( 3%C%
--5rder of 1orum dated 29%1+%2++1 was complied with on 1(%1%2++' 0 6elay co2ered by official procedure and not
due to any bad intention 0 5rder of imposing penalty by 1orum .uashed - 2+1+(2 C!C '"5 !b%
Penalty for false statement - 7ppellant making false statement on point of limitation - 6irected to pay
penalty to <s% 1:++:+++ for his faults - 2++#(2 C!C 1++ 3%C%
Practice $ !eriod of limitation of one year under Carriage of 9oods by $ea 7ct is not applicable to C! 7ct which
prescribes 2 years as period of limitation u@s 2"-7 - 2++9(' C!C '(8 $%C%
Preliminary Ob,ection - !oint of limitation not raised at preliminary stage - 1orum did not consider
ob/ection of limitation - 8ay be considered at the time of final hearing - 5rder upheld - 2++"(1 C!C 5+ 6elhi
Prosecution &5ffence committed under section '"+ of C<!C for filing false affida2it is not barred by final
decision of the matter in dispute nor barred by law of limitation - 2ur(reet Sin#h v. Phaya Nath $isra, 2++#(1 C!C ('"
!b%
Procedural delay - 6elay of 1(2 days in filing re2ision petition 0 8ere plea of procedural delay is not
sufficient to condone a long delay 0 2+1+(1 C!C 5'" 3%C%
--!rocedural delay is not a sufficient reason for condoning delay of 1+5 days 0 2+1+(1 C!C '85 3%C%
Prosecution &5ffence committed under section '"+ of C<!C for filing false affida2it is not barred by final
decision of the matter in dispute nor barred by law of limitation - 2ur(reet Sin#h v. Phaya Nath $isra, 2++#(1 C!C ('"
!b%
-easonable cause - 7pplicant remained in /udicial custody but his wife and daughter were appearing in the
case - <eason for condoning delay of '5( days is not sufficient - 2++'(2 C!C "#" !b%
--6elay of '8# days in filing appeal 0 <eason for delay was stated due to fault of lower rank officers 0 Cause for
delay is not sufficient and day-to-day delay must be e-plained% - 2+1+(' C!C #+ 3%C%
&6elay of '" days - 6elay caused by procedure of Legal Cell is no ground for condonation - 2++'(1 C!C 1"9 !b%
&6elay of '# days in filing of appeal - !lea of illness not supported by e2idence - 6elay cannot be condoned -
2++2(2 C!C 2#+ Chd%
-easonable period - Concept of reasonable period may be adopted when no time limit is prescribed under
rele2ant law - 2++8(1 C!C '81 3%C%
-eason for delay - Condonation of delay of 12" days sought on 2ague grounds 0 6elay cannot be condoned 0
2+1+(1 C!C #2' 4%!%
--7ppeal filed with delay of '"8 days 0 ,o say that papers of file were misplaced by her counsel is not a con2incing
reason 0 7ppeal rightly dismissed as time barred 0 5rder upheld 0 2+11(1 C!C 22" 3%C%
-epeated delay $ <e2ision filed with delay of #5 days against order passed in appeal which was barred by
delay of 11#( days 0 Condonation on ground of official negligence declined 0 2+1+(1 C!C (25 3%C%
-es ,udicata & ?arlier complaint dismissed in default - $econd complaint on same cause of action: e2en within
limitation: not maintainable - Sadhu Sin#h 2% AA1 %-- ,raders, 199#(2 C!C #'" )r%
-evival of limitation - ,ime of limitation e-pired - $ubse.uent writing a letter on the sub/ect does not
constitutes an acknowledgement - Sun)eam &otels .P/ Ltd. .$4s./ 2% Union o* India, 2+++(2 C!C #'2 Chd%
-eview - Cause of delay in filing of re2iew application due to wrong ad2ice - 9round held not sufficient - !indal
Photo 'ilms Ltd. 2% Smt. Kiran Sin#la, 2++'(1 C!C 55( !b%
!atisfactory reason - 6elay of (2 days in filing re2ision petition not e-plained with satisfaction 0
Condonation of delay declined 0 2++9(1 C!C #95 3%C%
--!rayer for condonation of delay of "1( days due to pendency of re2iew petition - 6elay cannot be condoned in the
absence of satisfactory e-planation - 2++#(2 C!C 28" 3%C%
!.ifting of office - $hifting of office no reason to condone delay in filing appeal - 2++"(1 C!C 1(( !b%
!ubstantial ,ustice - 6elay cannot be condoned where applicant has committed a gross negligence in
prosecution of his case - $ubstantial /ustice to both parties should be aim of the court - 2++#(2 C!C #+( )%!%
!ufficient cause - 7ppellant failed to e-plain delay of #" days - 3o sufficient reason for delay was gi2en -
7ppeal dismissed as time barred - An+u v. %ranch $ana#er, Li*e Insurance Cor(oration o* India, 2++#(1 C!C ### )r%
28
--Cause of action arose on #%5%199# whereas complaint was filed on 15%'%1999 0 3o sufficient reason for delay gi2en
0 Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2+1+(2 C!C "(5 3%C%
--7ppeal with delay of 155' days dismissed by $tate Commission as no reasonable cause gi2en by appellant for
condonation of delay 0 !resence of petitioner@5! was recorded in order of 6istrict 1orum 0 5rder of $tate Commission
upheld 0 2+11(1 C!C '85 3%C%
--6elay of 8' days in filing of appeal 0 <eason for delay was gi2en that file was mo2ing from table to table 0 <eason
not sufficient 0 7ppeal dismissed as time barred - 2+1+(' C!C 9' 3%C%
--6elay of 2+1 days in filing of appeal 0 Condonation of delay in the absence of sufficient cause declined - 2+1+(2
C!C ( 3%C%
!ufficient reason $ 7bnormal delay of 2## days in filing appeal 0 9round of alleged illness found
unsatisfactory 0 Condonation of delay declined 0 2+1+(1 C!C 2+5 3%C%
--Cause of action arose on (%#%199" 0 Complaint filed on 5%5%199( 0 3o satisfactory reason gi2en for delay 0
Complaint dismissed as time barred - 2++9(2 C!C 1 $%C%
&Cause of delay in filing of re2iew application due to wrong ad2ice - 9round held not sufficient - 2++'(1 C!C 55(
!b%
&Certificate of illness issued by 6octor of distant place - <eason condonation not sufficient as medical certificate is
doubtful - San+ay A#ro International v. !arman+it Sin#h, 2++"(2 C!C 192 !b%
&Copy of order misplaced by 7d2ocate - <eason not sufficient for condonation of delay - 2++"(2 C!C '"5 Chd%
&6elay cannot be condoned that time was spent in seeking legal opinion - 2++'(2 C!C "85 !b%
&6elay due to seeking of legal opinion cannot be condoned as it is not sufficient cause - 2++2(1 C!C '"+ Chd%
&6elay in filing appeal on account of seeking official legal opinion - 6elay cannot be condoned - 1e#istrar,
Coo(erative Societies, &aryana v. Shri Avinash Chander %hakri, 2++1(2 C!C #2' Chd%
&6elay in filing of appeal due to official process - 3o sufficient reason for condonation of delay - 2eneral
$ana#er .Phones/ 0 another v. Sucha Sin#h, 2++1(2 C!C 2"5 !b%
&6elay of 1128 days due to fri2olous ci2il litigation - <eason not sufficient to condone delay - 2++'(2 C!C '"8
3%C%
&6elay of 12" days in filing re2ision not e-plained with sufficient ground - <e2ision merits dismissal - 2++((1
C!C "(8 3%C%
&6elay of 15( days in filing appeal - *llness of one person of appellant company is not sufficient cause for
condonation of delay - 2++'(1 C!C #28 3%C%
--6elay of 2-H years in filing complaint 0 *lliteracy is not sufficient ground to condone delay - 2++9(2 C!C 5#8
4%!%
--6elay of 21' days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay declined in absence of satisfactory reason - 2++#(2
C!C #92 3%C%
--6elay of 2"' days in filing of re2ision petition 0 !rocedural delay cannot be taken as a 2alid reason for
condonation of delay - 2+1+(2 C!C '+ 3%C%
--6elay of 588 days in appeal 0 8ere contention of non receipt of order not sufficient for condonation of delay 0
2++9(1 C!C 1# 3%C%
--6elay of 95" days in filing application to set aside e-parte order due to fault on the part of 7d2ocate 0 6elay
condoned for sufficient reason shown - 2+1+(' C!C 28 3%C%
&6elay of few days in filing complaint due to typhoid fe2er - 6elay deser2es to be condoned - 2++"(1 C!C 8+
Chd%
&6elay of more than 2 months in filing appeal - <eason for delay was gi2en as counsel failed to intimate receipt of
copy - <eason not satisfactory - 7ppeal time barred - 2++"(1 C!C 1# 3%C%
--9rie2ance relating to allotment of plot arose in 198# whereas complaint filed in 1992 0 ?-planation regarding lack
of knowledge not con2incing 0 Complaint dismissed as withdrawn 0 2+11(1 C!C '+ 3%C%
&8%6% was out of station resulting in delay in filing appeal - 3o affida2it of 8%6% produced - <eason for delay not
sufficient - 2.P. 'orests evelo(ment .India/ Ltd. v. %a)y ,arun minor, 2++1(2 C!C 2"' !b%
--8o2ing of file from table to table is not a sufficient reason for condonation of delay - 2+1+(' C!C 1(8 3%C%
&3ecessary amount with appeal could not be deposited due to loss in business resulting in delay of appeal - <eason
not sufficient - Condonation of delay declined - 2++8(2 C!C ('5 3%C%
&3o affida2it of the 6i2isional 5fficer causing delay in official process: produced - 7ppeal dismissed as time
barred - 2++1(2 C!C 2"" !b%
&3o sufficient cause gi2en for delay of 11 days in filing appeal - 7ppeal dismissed as time barred - Surat 2oods
,rans(ort Service v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2++'(1 C!C 289 !b%
29
--!rocedural delay is not a sufficient reason for condoning delay of 1+5 days 0 2+1+(1 C!C '85 3%C%
--<eason for condonation of delay of 12(+ days not sufficient 0 Condonation of delay denied - 2++9(' C!C 1+5
3%C%
--<eason for delay of 111 days gi2en that file was mo2ing from table to table 0 <eason for condonation of delay is
not sufficient - 2++9(' C!C 595 3%C%
&<eason for delay was gi2en death of counsel - 7ppeal could be filed through another counsel - Condonation of
delay declined - Pearl International ,ours and ,ravels Ltd. v. Smt. Ka+ol i6it, 2++"(1 C!C 1#' Chd%
--<eason for delay was gi2en that 7d2ocate did not inform about fate of the case in time 0 <eason not satisfactory 0
Condonation of delay refused - 2+1+(' C!C '5 3%C%
&<eason for delay was gi2en that 7d2ocate misplaced the document - Condonation of delay cannot be allowed as
reason is not sufficient - 2++'(2 C!C 2'9 3%C
--<eason of illness of ;arta of family found not con2incing for delay in filing of appeal - Condonation of delay
declined as reason was not satisfactory - 2++"(1 C!C 1"# Chd%
&$hifting of petitioner=s office is not sufficient ground for condonation of delay - 2++"(1 C!C '' 3%C%
&$ufficient cause - ,he fact that appellant is a big organisation is no ground for condonation of delay - elhi 3idut
%oard v. 2o(i 1am, 2++1(1 C!C #5+ 6elhi
&$ufficient cause for delay not pro2ed - Condonation of delay declined - 2++((1 C!C ##9 3%C%
&,ime spent in legal opinion is not a sufficient reason for condonation of delay - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
$4s. $an#at 1am 0 Sons, 2++'(1 C!C '1" !b%
--Arong legal notice and administrati2e reasons are not sufficient to condone delay of 2"# days in filing appeal 0
)owe2er: delay is condoned to do /ustice to the appellant 2ictim of wrong decision 0 2++9(1 C!C 5++ 3%C%
!ummer vacation - Limitation e-pired during summer 2acation - 7ppeal not filed e2en on opening day -
Condonation of delay declined - 2++"(2 C!C 2+5 !b%
/nattested Copy - 6elay of one day in filing appeal as copy was not attested by official - 6elay to be
condoned - Union o* India 2% 1adha S"ami Satsan#, %eas, 1999(1 C!C 5"1 !b%
/ndue Delay - Cause of action arose in 198( whereas complaint filed in 1992 - Complaint rightly dismissed as
time barred - 2++2(1 C!C #'+ 3%C%
--4ndue delay of #91 days in filing of appeal 0 3o cause of delay e-plained 0 5rder of $tate Commission dismissing
appeal as time barred upheld - 2+1+(' C!C 1(1 3%C%
--*nformation .ua accident con2eyed after 2 years - ,erms of policy 2iolated on account of undue delay -
<epudiation of claim upheld - Li*e Insurance Cor(oration o* India 2% Smt. Narinder Kaur, 2++"(1 C!C 1#" Chd%
0ague Allegation - Fague allegation of misplacement of file in the office: cannot be a ground for condonation
of delay - 199((1 C!C 1#5 !b%
0ague rounds - 6elay cannot be condoned on the grounds which are found to be 2ague - 2++'(1 C!C 18'
!b%
&Fague ground pleaded for cause of delay of 595 days - Condonation of delay declined - 2++'(1 C!C 55# !b%
&Fague ground such as 7dministrati2e procedure pleaded for condonation of delay - 9rounds not sufficient -
2++"(1 C!C #+8 C%9%
0ague plea 0 Condonation of delay claimed on 2ague plea is not permissible 0 2+11(1 C!C 18( 3%C%
1rong Address - 6elay of 818 days in filing appeal - 7llegation of wrong address cannot be accepted when
was duly ser2ed by substituted ser2ice - 2++'(2 C!C 82 3%C%
LLLLL
Consumer Protection Cases
2C&P&C&3
A *ont.ly Law 4ournal
'+
Indispensable for Banks, Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, Industrial Houses, Universities, Department of
Telephone, ailways, Transport, !lectricity, Housin" Board, Urban Development #uthorities, Industrial and
Consumer #ssociations etc$
Ae publish a monthly Law Bournal namely
DConsumer %rotection CasesE%
Details of 0olumes
5& 5665 Consumer !rotection Cases +ot in !tock
7& 5667 Consumer !rotection Cases +ot in !tock
8& 5668 Consumer !rotection Cases +ot in !tock
9& 5669 :5; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
<& 5669 :7; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
=& 566< :5; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
>& 566< :7; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
?& 566= :5; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
6& 566= :7; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
5@& 566> :5; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
55& 566> :7; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
57& 566? :5; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
58& 566? :7; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
59& 5666 :5; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
5<& 5666 :7; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
5=& 7@@@ :5; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
5>& 7@@@ :7; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
5?& 7@@5 :5; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
56& 7@@5 :7; Consumer !rotection Cases <s% 5++@- only
7@& 7@@7 :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
75& 7@@7 :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
77& 7@@8 :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
78& 7@@8 :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
79& 7@@9 :5; Consumer Protection Cases +ot in !tock
7<& 7@@9 :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
7=& 7@@< :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
7>& 7@@< :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
7?& 7@@= :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
76& 7@@= :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
8@& 7@@> :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
85& 7@@> :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
87& 7@@? :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
88& 7@@? :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
89& 7@@? :8; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
8<& 7@@6 :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
8=& 7@@6 :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
8>& 7@@6 :8; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
8?& 7@5@ :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
86& 7@5@ :7; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
9@& 7@5@ :8; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
95& 7@55 :5; Consumer Protection Cases -s& <?@"- only
97& Annual !ubscription 7@55 (or t.ree 0ols -s& 58=@"- only
98& Consumer Protection Cases Digest 5665 to 7@@? -s& 587@"- only
#ddress for Correspondence &
'1
8anager:
Consumer !rotection Cases
1251: $ector 8-C:
Chandigarh 0 1#+ ++9
!hones M +1(2-25""8'+ and +9"1("1"#(5
?-mail cpcNchdOyahoo%com
www%consumercases%in
LLLL