IMPORTANT POINT
Scope in a Revision Petition is limited.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 16.11.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in MA/07 of 2022 for condonation of delay in Appeal No.32 of 2022 vide which condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed subject to cost of Rs.1000/- inter alia praying to set aside the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by State Commission and to dismiss the application for condonation of delay MA(CD)/07/2022 along with Appeal No.A/32/2022 pending before the State Commission.

2. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 10.02.2023. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 01.05.2023 (Petitioner/Complainant) and 07.08.2023 (Respondents/OPs) respectively.

3. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 16.11.2022 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

(i) That the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 in MA (CD)/07/2022, issued by the State Commission has been passed in a mechanical manner, without application of judicial mind. The State Commission exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularities.

(ii) The OPs failed to submit a certified copy of the order dated 04.04.2022, issued by the District Commission in CC/58/2020, while submitting the appeal and the application for condonation of delay. That the OPs did not furnish the application for condonation of delay with an accompanying affidavit, as stipulated by The Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Rules, 2020. This affidavit should have presented the factual basis upon which the respondents relied to demonstrate to the State Commission that they had valid reasons for not filing the appeal within the established limitation period.

(iii) The OPs inaccurately calculated the number of days of delay in their application for condonation of delay. The appeal before the State Commission was required to be initiated within 45 days from the date of the order and the time frame for filing the appeal against the order dated 04.04.2022 expired on 19.05.2022. OPs submitted the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay on 28.07.2022.

(iv) In the petition seeking condonation of delay, the OPs sought to excuse a 67 day delay, even though the actual delay in filing the appeal was 70 days. Granting the request to condone a 67 day delay would not have been appropriate to address the factual 70 day delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 04.04.2022. The OPs’ application for condonation of delay indicated that the delay arose from the process of obtaining legal opinion from an advocate. However, specific dates regarding the initiation and receipt of the legal opinion were omitted. Moreover, even after securing legal advice, the OPs cited a delay in obtaining approval for the file. Yet, the specific submission and approval dates remained undisclosed. Furthermore, the OPs neglected to mention when they engaged the advocate to file the appeal. It is imperative that explicit and comprehensive justifications accompany each request for the condonation of delay. Delays attributed to

bureaucratic processes are typically

not considered valid grounds for condonation.

(v) The OPs did not present any supporting documents to substantiate their claims. The application for condonation of delay, along with the affidavit, was sworn before a notary in Panaji on 23.07.2022, which is beyond the limitation period.

4. Heard Petitioner, who appeared in person and counsel of Respondent. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

(i) The counsel for Respondents/OPs argues that the OPs have presented sufficient cause to explain their delay in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The