NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1622/2025 (Against the Order dated 31st May 2024 in Appeal SC/23/A/1397/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Madhya pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/15384/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/15387/2025 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING EVIDENCE)

NC/IA/15385/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)

NC/IA/15388/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/15386/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM DIM DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/15383/2025 (STAY)

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIN. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - II FLOOR OM COMPLEX BH JAI BHARAT PETROL PUMP NAKA CHANDRAVADANI LASHKAR GWALIOR , GWALIOR,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus VINOD SINGH KUSHWAHA PRESENT ADDRESS - SALE TAX BARIER SHIV NAGAR MORENAMORENA,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE PETITIONER MR. SHUBHAM GARG, ADVOCATE DATED: 08/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 31.05.2024, passed by the learned Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.1397 of 2026, arising out of the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 105 of 2016.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/15384/2025 and IA/15388/2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay was caused for the reason that after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order, the matter was required to be examined at multiple levels within the applicant company, including scrutiny of the voluminous records, consultation with internal legal teams and also obtaining necessary approvals from the competent authorities at different levels before filing of this petition. He further submitted that the applicant is a large financial institution, operating the multiple branches across the country and decision making process necessarily involves administrative and procedural formalities and the time was consumed in all these procedural requirements. Hence, the delay may be condoned.

[

4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. There is a reported delay of 325 days in filing of the present revision petition. The impugned order was passed on 31.05.2024 and the copy of the same was received by the petitioner on 05.06.2024. The petitioner is a company having sufficient wherewithal.

6. Considering all these facts, the reasons given and submissions made are not sufficient and convincing to condone the said delay of 325 days in filing of this revision petition.

7. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related 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.

In Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-

2055/2022, decided on 25.02.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a prem