NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1348/2025 (Against the Order dated 6th March 2024 in Appeal SC/9/A/2006/741 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/12764/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/12765/2025 (STAY)

SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE .......Petitioner(s)

PERMANENT ADDRESS - OFFICE OF SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POS Versus SMT. INDIRA W/o. Shri Rajpal singh .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - MOHALLA NAIMANDI, 200 PATEL NAGARMU DR. V. K. SHARMA PERMANENT ADDRESS - T.B.HOSPITAL, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, SAHA SMT. KIRAN KUMARI SHARMA W/o. Dr. V.K. Sharma PERMANENT ADDRESS - T.B. HOSPITAL, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, SAH RISHI SHARMA S/o. Dr. v.k.sharma PERMANENT ADDRESS - HALL TB HOSPITALDISTRICT HOSPITAL BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE FOR THE PETITIONER MR. MANISH KUMAR, ADV. (IN VC) MR.

PETITIONER: KUMAR GAURAV, ADVOCATE DATED: 02/02/2026

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 no.1 being aggrieved of the order dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 741 of 2006, arising out of the order dated 24.02.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muzaffarnagar (for short the ‘District Forum’) in complaint case no. 56 of 1996.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/12764/2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in filing of the present revision petition was caused for the reason that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 could be received by the petitioner only on 30.10.2024. The petitioner being a Central Government department is bound by established institutional procedures therefore, the scrutiny and approvals at various levels were sought. Further, the time was consumed in collection of documents, preparation of departmental notes, obtaining legal opinion and also drafting and filing of the petition. Hence, the delay of 345 days was caused but, that is not intentional but due to the circumstances explained.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

5. The Registry has reported that there is a delay of 256 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of the revision petitions. The submissions made and reasons given in the delay condonation application are not convincing and sufficient enough to condone the huge delay of 256 days in filing of the presentrevision petition.

6. In a recent judgement Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karanataka Housing Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019) decided on 12.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“261. …….Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.”

7. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2474 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.7595-96 of 2011)

decided on 24.02.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:

“12.