IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (Through Hybrid Hearing)LKJIHGFEDCBA REVISION PETITION NO.107 OF 2026 (Against the Order dated 19.02.2024 in First Appeal No.421/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, M.P.)

with NC/IA/1149/2026, NC/IA/1150/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY, EXEMPTION FOR FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION)

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Sam iti M aryadit Through Branch M anager & Anr. Petitioner(s)

Versus Vijay Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) M s. M ini Ravindran, Advocate (VC)

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Advocate M r. Vishwa Dev Sarraf, Advocate Dated : 13.02.2026

ORDER (ORAL)

The present R evision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b)

of the C onsum er Protection Act, 1986 by fhe Petitioners/O pposite Parties being aggrieved of the order dated 19,02.2024 passed by the learned M .P. State C onsum er D isputes R edressal C om m ission (for short ‘State C om m ission’) in Appeal N o.421/2018.

This R evision Petition has been filed w ith a delay of 596 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, H eard the learned C ounsel for the Petitioners on delay condonation Application being IA/1149/2026.

Learned C ounsel for the Petitioners subm itted that the delay was caused for the reason that the considerable tim e w as consum ed in getting the translatior^don^ of the docum ents. Further, it has also been subm itted that this Petition has been re-filed, so there is a delay of 230 days in re-filing and that m ay be condoned.

C onsidered the subm issions m ade by the learned C ounsel and perused the record.

As per office report, there is a delay of 596 days in filing of this R evision Petition. The im pugned O rder w as passed on 19.02.2024 and this Petition has been filed on 08.01.2026. The copy of the O rder w as received on 22.02.2024. In the Application, there is no m ention w hen the petition w as initially filed and for w hat reason that was returned. The Petitioner in the delay condonation application has Sim ply w ritten in Para-6 as under:

“6. That the 230 days delay in re-filing the present R evision Petition is unintentional, Bonafide and beyond control of the petitioner.”

Being a C onsum er C om plaint, such condonation w ould defeat the purpose of the Act. This is a C ohsum er C om plaint m atter and has to be decided in a tim e bound m anner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable tim e W ithout sufficient Cause, w ould go against the letter and spirit of the C onsum er Protection Act.

Anshul I am relying on the O rder of the H on'ble Suprem e C ourt in Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), w herein, it w as held as under:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in m ind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consum er Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consum er disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consum er Foras."

Basavraj & Ann Vs. The Spl. The H on’ble Suprem e C ourt in Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SOW 6510 observed as under:

A "9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasm uch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" em braces no m ore than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accom plish the purpose intended in the facts and circum stances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent m anner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and ci