NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/959/2025 (Against the Order dated 4th September 2024 in Appeal SC/3/A/412/2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab)

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER PRESENT ADDRESS - THE MALLBATHINDA,PUNJAB.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus GURJANT SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O VILLAGE GEHRI DEVI NAGAR, BATHINDA,PUNJAB.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

MR. NIKHIL JAIN, ADVOCATE (VC)

DATED: 30/07/2025

ORDER

This is a Revision Petition filed with a delay of 101 days beyond the 90 days’

period granted for filing Revision Petition before this Commission.

In the Application for condonation of delay, the ground mentioned for the delay is the procedural delays, associated with taking permission from competent authorities and other associated procedures for filing. Evidently, this is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

Being a Consumer Complaint, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Act. This is a Consumer Complaint matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

I am relying on the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)

wherein, it was held as under:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the 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 this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras."

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510 observed as under:

"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", inasmuch 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 explanation 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. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee &Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 (2011 AIR SEW 1233); and Maniben Devraj Shah v.

Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412.)

12. It is a settled legal proposition that 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 gro