IN TH E N A TIO N A L C O N S U M E R D IS P U TE S R E D R E S S A L C O M M IS S IO N N E W D E LH I D IA R Y N O . 141 O F 2025 (Against the Order dated 15.09.2021 in Appeal No. 992/2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka)

W ITH IA/12586/2025, IA/12587/2025, IA/12588/2025 (Condonation of delay, Exemption for filing evidence, Exemption from filing the certified copy)

The Chairm an Shree Shadakshari Shivyougi Siddram eshw ar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd., Dadabanahatti, Belagavi Dist., Pin Code-591 309 PetitionerDCBA V ersus

1. Kashinath Anil M okashi R/o. N arasinghpur Village, Hukkeri Tq., Belagavi Dist.

Karnataka-591243

2. The C hief Executive O fficer, Shree Shadakshari Shivyougi Siddram eshw ar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd., Dadabanahatti, Belagavi Dist., Karnataka, 591 309 Respondents B E FO R E:

H O N ’B LE A V M J. R A JE N D R A , A V S M V S M (R etd.), P R E S ID IN G M E M B E R H O N ’B LE M R . JU S TIC E A N O O P K U M A R M E N D IR A TTA , M E M B E R For the Petitioner (s) Dr. Sum it Kum ar and M r. Keshav Baheti, Advocates For the Respondent (s): M s. Aditi Dani, Advocate for R-1 (VC)

M r. Sushree Sipra Sahu, Advocate for R-2 D ated : 21.10.2025

O R D ER (O R A L)

1. It is seen from the record that there is 1346 days delay in filing this Revision Petition. LA. No. 12586 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the )

Petitioner seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, the Petitioner has subm itted that he had entrusted his counsel with the com plete set of files pertaining to all seven First Appeals decided by the State Com m ission through a com m on order dated 15.09.2021. However, contrary to the instructions, the erstwhile counsel, filed only one revision petition RP No. 1191/2021 and failed to file the present case. The Petitioner rem ained under the bona fide im pression that all revision petitions in the batch had been duly filed, particularly as the advocate had assured that notice had been issued in RP No. 1191/2021. Repeated attem pts by the Petitioner and his local counsel to contact the said advocate proved futile. Even postal com m unication failed as the advocate had shifted his office, and the Petitioner rem ained unaware of his new address. He cam e to know about the dism issal of RP No. 1191/2021 only upon receipt of a copy of the order from this Com m ission. O n engaging the present counsel, he discovered that only one revision petition had been filed in the batch and that too with defects. The om ission in filing this petition was thus due to previous counsel’s negligence, which was beyond his control. O n learning of this, he acted prom ptly to file this revision petition. The Petitioner places reliance on Hon’ble Suprem e Court in RCBafAiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 140 and Smt. Lachi & Ors. v. Director of Land Records & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 41, holding that a party should not suffer due to the inaction or negligence of counsel. Further in Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4758 of 2023, it was reaffirm ed that a litigant should not be penalized for counsel's om issions. He contended that he also faced health-related issues, being about 50 years old and had undergone m ultiple spine treatm ents, im pacting his m obility and contributing to delay. Also, bereavem ents in the fam ily caused further m ental distress, preventing tim ely action. The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, and if not condoned, would result in grave and irreparable prejudice to the Petitioner, who has a strong case on m erits.

2. As regards period of lim itation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (C onsum er Com m ission 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... ”