NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1667/2025 (Against the Order dated 28th March 2022 in Appeal SC/9/A/2006/1502 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/15704/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/15705/2025 (STAY)

NC/IA/15706/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM DIM DOCUMENTS)

DR. ASHOK PACHAURI PRESENT ADDRESS - 21,MANAS NAGAR, SHAHGANJ , AGRA , AGRA , AGRA,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus JOGENDRA SINGH DECEASED THROUGH L.R.

PRESENT ADDRESS - 63, MIG NEW SHAHGANJ , AGRA , AGRA , AGRA,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE PETITIONER MR. PAWAN KUMAR RAY, ADVOCATE MS. MAHIMA, ADVOCATE DATED: 12/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 28.03.2022, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.1502 of 2006, arising out of the order dated 05.04.2006, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agra (for short the ‘District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 149 of 2003.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/15704/2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay was caused for the reason that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default. The order of dismissal was not conveyed to the appellant either by the State Commission or by the learned counsel of the appellant.

4. He further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the dismissal order when the petitioner recently knew that the respondent is pursuing execution application before the District Commission. Then he enquired from his counsel, who informed that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.03.2022. He further submitted that the petitioner did not receive any free copy from the concerned State Commission. Hence the delay should be condoned.

[

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

6. The Registry has reported that there is a delay of 963 days, beyond the prescribed period of 90 days.

7. The impugned order was passed on 28.03.2022. Copy of the same was received by the petitioner on 10.02.2023. After dismissal of the appeal through impugned order on

28.03.2022, the petitioner, as submitted by him, that he could not know about the order, shows his negligent attitude. He remained silent and did not enquire even from his counsel about the appeal filed by him before the State Commission in the year 2006.

8. In considered opinion of this Bench, the reasons given and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not convincing and sufficient enough to condone a huge delay of 963 days in filing of this revision petition.

9. 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 d