IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Condonation of delay – To condone such delay in filing the Revision Petition, the Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition after the stipulated period.
(2) ‘Sufficient cause’ – ‘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.
(3) Satisfactory explanation – Unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, a Court should not normally allow the application for condonation of delay under this Act.

ORDER

These four Revision Petitions, bearing Nos.RP/2330/2023, RP/2380/2023, RP/2406/2023 and RP/2407/2023 were filed by Cross Trade Links (the “Petitioner”/”Complainant”) against ECGC Limited and Another (“Respondents”/”Opposite Parties”). These Revision Petitions challenge the orders dated 07.07.2023, 03.07.2023, 17.08.2023 and 10.08.2023 respectively in First Appeal Nos.277/2022, 274/2022, 273/2022 and 278/2022, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (the “State Commission”). The State Commission had dismissed all the Appeals as barred by limitation. In turn, these Appeals had been filed against the Orders of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, West Delhi, New Delhi (‘District Forum’, hereafter) dated 24.11.2022 in C.C. Nos.384, 385, 383 and 382 of 2022 whereby the District Forum also dismissed the complaints being barred by limitation.

2. Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, Revision Petition No. 2330 of 2023 is being considered as the lead case.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties on the question of limitation in filing the Complaint filed before the District Forum and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the Complaint before the District Forum was neither intentional nor deliberate. He asserted that Petitioner’s cause of action arose on 27.01.2022 when the final rejection of the claim was freshly reviewed by the ACGC and the Head Office (Grievance) as per Clause 4.19.2 of the Manual read with 4.20.2. Whereas, the period of limitation was counted from 05.03.2019 onwards by the learned State Commission as the 2nd representation was rejected by the Respondents/ OPs. The Complaint was filed before the District Forum on 26.09.2022 which was within limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further averred that the claim of the Petitioner was reopened after each representation and was reviewed afresh by a higher official/authority than the one who had rejected the claim under. The learned State Commission ought to have considered this fact and remanded the matter back to the District Forum for deciding the matter on merits. He, therefore, sought to allow the present Revision Petition and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Fora below. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Japjeet Singh Chadha Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) SCC OnLine NCDRC 150.

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/OPs has argued in favour of the impugned orders passed by the Fora below. He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs. He has relied upon the following judgments:—

(i) Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 7 SCC 768.

(ii) SBI Vs BS Agricultural Industries (2009) 5 SCC 121.

(iii) VN Shri Khande (Dr)Vs Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.

(iv) Jansatta Sahkari Awas Samati Ltd Vs Kone Elevators India Pvt Ltd I (2016) CPJ 190 NC.

(v) Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd and Anr. Vs. Satinder Pal Singh 11 (2018) CPJ 245 (NC).

(vi) State of Tripura & Ors Vs Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors 1 (2014) SLT 370.

(vii) Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. III (2006) CPJ 414 (NC).

(viii) Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt Ltd. 1 (2019) CPJ 347 (NC).

(ix) Muneesh Devi Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd (2013) 10 SCC 478.

(x) HUDA Vs Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd IV (2012) CPJ 12 (NC).

(xi) Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2003 (i) CPJ 31 (NC).

(xii) M/s State India Express (Registered) Vs M/s Ranutrol Ltd and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

(xiii) Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC).

(xiv) Cicily Kall