1. The matter was heard on 29.09.2023 and 12.10.2023 and notice was issued to the Respondents to file reply to IA/12095/2023 seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 filed a reply to IA/12095/2023 seeking condonation of delay on 27.12.2023. 2. As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 291 days in filing this Revision Petition. The Petitioner filed IA No. 12095 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA it has been stated that the petitioner received the copy of impugned order dated 30.08.2022 on 26.12.2022. Thereafter, the Department had held the meeting on 20.02.2023 for taking a decision on the order passed by the learned State Commission. It was decided in the meeting that the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 has to be challenged before the National Commission and thus sought clarification from the Axis Bank, whether the demand letter was returned. The Petitioner had also sought clarification from the Postal Department whether the demand cum allotment letter was received by Ms. Rekha Raghav or not and also to inform if the demand cum allotment letter was received and provide the receipt of the same. 3. Thereafter, a letter dated 24.12.2012 was received from Axis Bank addressed to DD(LIG) informing that the demand letter No.77820 of Rekha Raghav was dispatched by Speed Post No. ED33366986IN dated 18.08.2011 from Seelampur Post Office which was addressed to Rekha Raghav R/o. B-61 Delta-I Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. A letter was issued by the Post Master, Seelampur on 25.05.2023. After receiving the letter from the Post Office, the Appeal Committee decided on 09.08.2023 to challenge the order before the State Commission. The case file was then sent to the Legal Dept on 14.08.2023 for appointment of a Counsel. The Legal Dept nominated the Counsel on 17.08.2023 and the file sent to the Counsel on 29.08.2023 for preparing the Revision Petition. After preparing the file, the learned Counsel sent it for signatures and verification of facts on 04.09.2023. The learned counsel received back the file only on 11.09.2023. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner asserted that there is a delay of 286 days in filing the Revision Petition and it was mainly due to administrative reasons. She further stated that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate and if the delay is not condoned, the Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. She, therefore, sought that the delay be condoned. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 brought out that there has been delay of 294 days as against prescribed 90 days. However, the Petitioner filed the instant Revision Petition with unexplainable delay of 294 days. He argued that, in the present condonation of delay Application, the Petitioner tried to shift the burden of delay on its counsel, without referring to the name, which is unimaginable. He asserted that the Petitioner mischievously stated that the copy of the judgment dated 30.08.2022 was received by it only on 26.12.2022 from their Counsel and, however, failed to disclose as to when his counsel received the copy of the order. He argued that, even presuming that they came to know about the order dated 30.08.2022 on 26.12.2022, still unexplainable delay of 176 days in filing the Revision Petition remains. The Petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause for not filing the same within the 90 days. The approach of the Petitioner is the lackadaisical wherein admittedly the meeting for taking decision on the order dated 30.08.2022 was held only on 20.02.2023, after about 2 months of receipt of order. No explanation was given as to why it took two months just to schedule a meeting for taking decision. No reasons were explained as to why the decision to challenge the order dated 30.08.2022 was taken on 09.08.2023 i.e. two months after receiving the letter dated 25.05.2023 from post Master, Seelampur. No clarification was asked from Axis Bank and Post Office Seelampur. They failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused in filing the present Revision Petition and also failed to give any cogent reasons for the delay in filing the revision petition. He, therefore, sought the Application seeking to condone the delay of 294 days dismissed. - As regards period of limitation for filing 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:- - 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 learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 30.08.2022. The limitation for filing the Revision Petition before this Commission is 90 days. However, this period of limitation for filing the Revision Petition would commence from the date of receipt of the impugned Order by the Petitioner i.e. 30.08.2022. While the limitation lapsed on 27.11.2022, however, the present Revision Petition was filed on 15.09.2023. Therefore, as per the Registry, there is a delay of 291 days in filing the Revision Petition. 7. As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal / Revision Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, 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 to be applied while dealing with such cases is whether the Petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. 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. The 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. 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. 14. Examination of the material on record and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel reveals that the impugned order in the case was passed on 30.08.2022 and the period of limitation as per the registry commenced from the date of receipt of the order dated 30.08.2022 and lapsed on 27.11.2022. Admittedly, the Revision Petition No. 2317 of 2023 against the order of learned State Commission dated 30.08.2022 was filed on 15.09.2023. Therefore, there is a delay of 291 days in filing the same, which the Petitioner needs to explain as required under law. It is a clear that limitation lapsed on 27.11.2022 and whereas, the Revision Petition was filed on 15.09.2023. Thus, there was delay of 291 days which needs to be explained. 15. It is the stated position of the Petitioner that they received the copy of impugned order dated 30.08.2022 on 26.12.2022. The circumstances under which such delay of over three months took place is not brought out. Further, intriguingly, while it is known to the Petitioner that the period of limitation for filing a Revision Petition is 90 days, the Dept had held the meeting only on 20.02.2023 to take a decision on challenging the said impugned order. The remaining procedure took further time and the same was filed only on 15.09.2023 with 291 days of delay. 16. The reasons stated in the instant case are routine in nature and grossly inadequate to justify such protracted delay. There is no justification for such undue delay while facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Petitioner. Thus, the petitioner failed to show sufficient reason or cause for delay of each day as required under the law. The reasons stated do not reflect that the Petitioner has taken actions necessary under law in time. 17. With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for such undue delay in filing the present petition. Therefore, the Application filed seeking condonation of delay cannot be granted as the grounds advanced do not justify the unduly long delay. 18. In view of the foregoing, IA/12095/2023 is Disallowed. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 2317 of 2023 is also Dismissed. 19. All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. | 
