1.      These 3 Revision Petitions, bearing No. RP/2321/2023, RP/2322/2023 and RP/2323/2023 were filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioner”/ “Opposite Party”) against M/s. Jusab Ibrahim & Sons & Ors. (Hereinafter referred to as the “Respondents”/“Complainants”). These Revisions Petitions challenge the Orders dated 22/12/2022 in First Appeal Nos. RBT/A/15/92, RBT/A/15/74, RBT/A/15/93 & RBT/A/15/75 respectively, which were passed by the learned Maharashtra, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”). The State Commission in First Appeal Nos. RBT/A/15/92, RBT/A/15/74 had dismissed all the Appeals and in RBT/A/15/93 and RBT/A/15/75 partially allowed the appeals. In turn, these Appeals were filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola (‘District Forum’, hereafter) dated 21.10.2015. Vide this order, the District Forum, had partly allowed the Complaints. For clarity, the details of each case are tabulated below:-

2.      Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates of defective filing, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, Revision Petition No. 2321 of 2024 is being considered as the lead case.

3.      As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 150 days in filing of this Revision Petition. I.A. No. 12129 of 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, the petitioner has stated that the free copy of impugned order of the learned State Commission was received by the petitioner’s counsel on 09.01.2023. Thereafter, the local counsel of the petitioner company vide opinion dated 10.01.2023 recommended the Regional TP Hub of the petitioner Amravati for filing of revision before this Commission and that the regional office of the petitioner sent the file to head office at New Delhi with the recommendation to challenge the impugned order before this Commission and take appropriate direction. After seeking legal opinion, the Head Office of the petitioner deputed Shri Amandeep Singh, panel advocate to take appropriate steps for filing the Revision Petition. After perusal of the file, the counsel for the petitioner noticed that almost all records of the District Forum were in Marathi and also complete record of learned District Forum was not available with the file provided. Hence, the counsel for petitioner, vide email dated 28.03.2023 sought deficient documents along with translated copy of the District Forum records from the concerned authority of petitioner. Since the records of the district Commission were required, which was a disposed of matter, it took some time. The counsel for petitioner received a set of records in the Second Week of May, 2023. However, after perusal of the same, he found evidence affidavit and written argument filed by both the parties were still not available and the same were in Marathi. Hence, vide email dated 30.05.2023, he requested the petitioner to provide translated copy of the record of the learned District Forum. The translated copy of record of learned District Forum and the certified copy of record of the learned State Commission were provided to the counsel for petitioner on 25.07.2023. Due to these reasons, the present Revision Petition could not be filed within the limitation period. The delay in filing the Revision Petition is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to reasons and circumstances out of the control of the petitioner notably translation of record of learned District Forum from Marathi to English.

4.      The learned counsel for the respondent in RP/2321/2023 has filed a reply to the Application seeking for condonation of delay. In the said reply, the Respondent denied each averment, contention and allegation made by the Applicant in the Application seeking condonation of delay, unless the same is specifically admitted. He contended that on bare perusal of the contents of the Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petition, it is evident that the Applicant/ Petitioner is not entitled to any relief of condonation of delay as it is a settled law that that delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory and sufficient cause and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already laid down the principle in a catena of judgements. He also relied upon the two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Baswaraj and Anr. V. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] and P. K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. [(1997) 7 SCC 556]. In view of the above Judgements, it can be seen that the averments of the present application, the Applicant/ Petitioner has failed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is not entitled to any relief from this Commission. He denied that the delay in filing the present petition was unintentional and was due to circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant/ Petitioner as the Applicant ought to have upheld the sanctity of the Orders of State Commission and District Forum. By merely stating the reason of the documents not being procured and translated and the legal opinion not being sought within the requisite time without any sufficient or justifiable cause, the Applicant has not brought a single document or record to show and justify that delay was unintentional and was beyond the control of the Applicant. The Applicant is trying to mislead this Commission by placing incomplete and incorrect facts just for the purpose of obtaining relief from this Commission on false grounds. Therefore, the Applicant has miserably failed to show any bona fide reasons or grounds to be entitled for the relief of condonation of delay of the present application and thus the application ought to be rejected by this Commission. However, no reply has been filed by Mr. Imran Tabani, Respondent, who appeared in person, in R.P. Nos.2322 and 2323 of 2023 and endorsed the said contentions.

5.      As regards the period of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 inter alia stipulates that:

 “Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-

1. Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order…”

6.      In the present Revision Petition, the State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 22.12.2022. The limitation for filing Revision Petition before this Commission is 90 days. However, this period commences from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Petitioner i.e., 09.01.2023. While the limitation for filing present Revision Petition lapsed on 08.04.2023, however, the present Revision Petition was filed on 06.09.2023. Therefore, there was a delay of 150 days.

7.      As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing Revision Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed:

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

8.      The test is to be applied while dealing with such a case is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108” has held:

"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

9.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578” has also observed as under:-

“while deciding the application filed, for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and that the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated appeals and revision petitions are entertained".

10.    To condone such delay in filing, the Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ was explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 that:-

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”,  in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and  circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory application is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”

11.    In Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), the NCDRC held:-

“12……… we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggawal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, will get defeated if the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained.”

12.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lingeswaran Etc. Vs Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal(C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022 has held that:-

“5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for  condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.”

13.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Civil Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018  decided on 08.04.2024 held:

“30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of  the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).”

14.    From the above orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and that the applicant must satisfy that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting its case. Unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, a Court should not normally allow the application for condonation of delay under this Act.

15.    From the examination of the material on record and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, it is clear that the impugned order in the case was passed on 22.12.2022 and the period of limitation commenced from the date of receipt of the order on 09.01.2023 had lapsed on 08.04.2023. However, the Revision Petition was filed on 06.09.2023. However, no sufficient cause has been brought out. The petitioner failed to show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. In the instant case, the reasons stated for are routine in nature and grossly inadequate to justify such long delay. It is a matter of record that this is third layer of litigation of the same matter. There is no apparent justification for such undue and protracted delay, while facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Petitioners. The reasons explained are routine in nature which does not reflect that the Petitioners had taken the actions necessary under law in time.

16.    With due regard to the statutory provisions, mandate of summary nature of proceedings under the Act, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause for such long delay of 150 in filing the present Revision Petitions. Therefore, the Applications filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the said Revision Petitions cannot be granted and accordingly, the same is disallowed on the grounds stated above.

17.    In view of the foregoing, the IA Nos. 12129, 12131 and 12134 of 2023 filed by the Petitioner are Disallowed. Consequently, the Revision Petitions No. RP/2321/2023, RP/2322/2023 and RP/2323/2023 are Dismissed.

18.    All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.