IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Protracted delay - The petitioner failed to show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. In the instant case, the cause shown for delay that the issue pertains to the delay in entirely departmental processes is very routine and grossly inadequate for such protracted delay.
(2) Protracted Delay - There is no apparent justification for such undue and protracted delay in taking necessary action in the matter while the facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Petitioner.

ORDER (ORAL)

As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 191 days in filing of this Revision Petition. However, IA No.12324 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay for 196 days. The petitioner averred in the said IA that the impugned order was passed on 08.12.2022. Thereafter, the Petitioner-Company, upon receiving the copy of order dated 08.12.2022, deliberated upon the matter and decided to question its correctness. In January 2023, the Petitioner engaged a lawyer for drafting and filing of the revision petition before the NCDRC. In furtherance of the same, the records of the case and certified copy of the order were supplied to the lawyer. During February-March 2023, some changes occurred in the internal management of the Petitioner Company, including the change of the then Manager (Legal) Mr. Prabal Dixit with Ms Richa Pachori, incumbent Manager (Legal). The change of personnel in internal management of the Petitioner-Company led to consolidating data, status of ongoing litigations of the Petitioner Company. In the middle of this transition, the officials of the Petitioner-Company could not follow up with the lawyer about the status of drafting and filing of the revision-petition.

2. During April 2023, the officials of the Petitioner tried to contact the lawyer over telephone. He did not respond. Thereafter, for next three months from April to July 2023, the officials of the Petitioner made numerous attempts and efforts to reach out. But it was without success. Ultimately, the lawyer informed the Petitioner’s officials in the last week of July 2023 that on account of certain personal difficulties, he could not draft and file the revision petition before the NCDRC and assured to return the case records along with certified copy of the impugned order. The Petitioner received the records and certified copy of the impugned order in August 2023. They engaged Mr Chetan Kanungo and Mr Rohit Chandra (Advocates) to draft the revision petition, file the same and represent the Petitioner before the NCDRC. The present petition is consequently filed. The delay in filing the instant petition was not on account of any inadvertence or negligence of the Petitioner. Despite the due diligence and taking timely steps, it could not be filed within the limitation period. In the wake of the events that transpired, the Petitioner sought the leave of this Commission to condone the delay in filing the instant revision petition and afford opportunity to address the matter on merits. If the impugned order is not interfered, merely on grounds of delay, it will result in grave injustice to the Petitioner and cause upholding an otherwise, unlawful order passed without jurisdiction.

3. As regards 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:—

(i) Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order...”

4. Therefore, the present revision petition was to be filed within 90 days of the receipt of the order of the learned State Commission. From the perusal of records, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 08.12.2022 and the order was received on 12.12.2022, the present Revision was filed on 19.09.2023 and its admitted position that, there has been a delay of 191 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed as under:—

“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.