NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1070/2025 (Against the Order dated 30th August 2024 in Appeal SC/33/A/32/2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Tamil nadu)

WITH NC/IA/9652/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/9651/2025 (STAY)

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER PRESENT ADDRESS - EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,GOVT OF INDIA , BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, DR BALASUNDARAM ROAD , MINISTRY OF LABOUR, 3875,REGIONAL OFFICE, , COIMBATORE,TAMIL NADU.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus MR. P. ELLAIYAN PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O R. PALANISAMY, DOOR NO. 5/223RD STREET, KAVUNDAMPALAYAM POENS COLONY , COIMBATORE,TAMIL NADU.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE PETITIONER MS. GEETA HANDA KHANUJA, ADV. (IN VC)

DATED: 08/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner/opposite party No.2 being aggrieved of the order dated 30.08.2024, passed by the learned Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 32 of 2020, arising out of the Order dated 30.04.2019, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore (for short the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 27 of 2016.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on the delay condonation application being IA/9652/2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petition could not be filed in time for the reasons that the petitioner is a Government department and the time was consumed in taking the approvals at different levels. The delay is a procedural delay and not the deliberate. Hence the delay may be condoned.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

5. The Registry has reported that there is a delay of 168 days in filing of the present revision petition, beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The impugned order was passed on 30.08.2024 and the copy of the same was received on 25.09.2024 and the present petition has been filed before this Commission on 10.06.2025.

6. The reasons given and submissions made for condoning a huge delay are not sufficient and convincing. Such a huge delay cannot be condoned, merely for the reason that the Petitioner is Government department. In a recent judgement Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karanataka Housing Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019) decided on 12.09.2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“261. …….Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude. “

7. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2474 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.7595-96 of 2011)

decided on 24.02.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:

“12. It is not in dispute that the person (s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separat