NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1135/2025 (Against the Order dated 19th February 2024 in Appeal SC/CB1/8/A/120/2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bench jodhpur)

WITH NC/IA/10492/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM DIM DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/11435/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/10490/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRIAL RECORDS)

NC/IA/10489/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

RAMESH BHANSALI PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O BHOORMAL BHANSALI R/O PLOT NO 70 MAHAVEER JAIN COLONY KAMLA NEHRU NAGAR JODHPUR,RAJASTHAN.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus BANK OF INDIA BUSINESS ADDRESS - HEAD OFFICE STAR HOUSE C-5 G-BLOCK BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST MUMBAI BRANCH OFFICE PRATAP NAGAR BRANCH JODHPURJODHPUR,RAJASTHAN.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE PETITIONER MR. GAURAV JAIN, ADVOCATE DATED: 23/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/complainant being aggrieved of the order dated 19.02.2024, passed by the learned Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 120 of 2022, arising out of the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (Second), Jodhpur, (for short the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 489 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation applications being IA/10489/2025 and IA/11435/2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay was caused for the reason that initially the petition was filed on E-dakhil Portal in the month of October, 2024 but, that was found defective. In the meantime, the E-dakhil portal was changed to e- Jagriti Portal therefore the petition was again filed on e-Jagriti Portal. Hence the delay occurred.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

5. The petitioner himself has mentioned that there was a delay of 171 days in filing of the initial revision petition, which was filed on E-dakhil Portal, which was returned for certain defects. Now, in filing of this revision petition on e-Jagriti Portal, there is a delay of 47 days. No convincing and sufficient reason has been assigned to explain the delay of

171 days in filing of the initial petition, which was allegedly filed on E-dakhil Portal.

6. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Bench the reasons given for condonation of delay are not sufficient and convincing enough to condone the said delay in filing of the 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