NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/22/2026 (Against the Order dated 2nd April 2025 in Appeal SC/23/A/19/1085 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Madhya pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/169/2026 (EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/171/2026 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRIAL RECORDS)

NC/IA/172/2026 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)

NC/IA/173/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/170/2026 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION)

STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER PRESENT ADDRESS - BRANCH UMRANALA DIST CHHINDWARACHHINDWARA,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,, NH-12, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, , BHOPAL,MADHYA PRADESH.

ABDUL HANIF S/o. mabud khan PRESENT ADDRESS - VILAGE JHIRIYA, , TEHSIL AND DIST. - CHHINDWARA , P.O. -

SARANGI BIHARI, , CHHINDWARA,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE PETITIONER MS. RICHA MISHRA, ADVOCATE DATED: 22/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present first appeal has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner/opposite party No.1 being aggrieved of the order dated 02.04.2025, passed by the learned Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1085 of 2019, arising out of the order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chhindwara, (for short the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 15 of 2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/173/2026.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay was caused for the reason that the State Bank of India is a Public Sector Bank of the Government of India and for availing any legal remedy approvals are needed at different levels. After receiving the copy of the impugned order on 04.04.2025, the documents were referred to the Department, seeking opinion. After getting approval from the local Head Office, the matter was referred to the counsel at Delhi and that took time in getting translated the documents and drafting.

4. Considered the submissions made and the reasons given in the delay condonation application.

5. The petitioner is a bank having sufficient wherewithal.

6. Considering these circumstances and the considered opinion of this Bench the reasons given are not sufficient and convincing to condone a delay of 162 days in filing of the present 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 premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed