NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1034/2025 (Against the Order dated 25th January 2024 in Appeal SC/10/A/230/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar)

WITH NC/IA/10217/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/9187/2025 (EXCEMPTION OF ANNEXURES)

NC/IA/10205/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/9186/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

PRAJESH KUMAR PRESENT ADDRESS - SON OF DR. ARUN KUMAR SINGH, PRATAP NAGAR, SAHARSA, BIHARSAHARSA,BIHAR.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus DEPUTY CHIEF COMMERCIAL PRESENT ADDRESS - CLAIMS ECR HAJIPUR VAISHALI BIHARVAISHALI,BIHAR.

STATION MANGAGER ECR PRESENT ADDRESS - SAHARSA RAILWAY STATION SAHARSA BIHARSAHARSA,BIHAR.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

MR. ASHOK ANAND, ADV. MR. BIPIN BIHARI SINGH, ADV.

DATED: 21/08/2025

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner/complainant being aggrieved of the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna, (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 230 of 2017, arising out of the Order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saharsa (for short the ‘District Forum) in Consumer Case No. 04 of

2009.

2. The present petition has been filed with a delay of 430 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of the revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/9186/2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay was caused for the reason that earlier a revision petition was filed on 29.04.2024 in the Registry of this Commission. However, the same was defective and very recently when the petitioner has enquired about his case, the counsel came to know that the defective revision petition was lying with the Registry as the defects were not removed. The learned counsel asked about the file and that was found missing. On search it was gathered by the counsel that the original file of the matter was found tied with one disposed of matter.

5. Considered the submissions made and the grounds given in the delay condonation application.

6. The Bench is not convinced with the reasons given for condoning such a huge delay of 430 days in filing of the present revision petition. No document has been filed to support what has been submitted orally and written in the delay condonation application. No material is on record in support what has been argued.

7. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation of huge delay without sufficient cause, 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 requir