NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/152/2026 (Against the Order dated 13th June 2025 in Appeal No. SC/6/A/879/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana)

WITH NC/IA/1802/2026 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRIAL RECORDS)

NC/IA/1801/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/1803/2026 (EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS)

MAHIPAL SINGH RANA S/o. b.s. rana PRESENT ADDRESS - H.NO. A003, ANSAL CITY, SECTOR 32KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - RAILWAY ROAD, KKR. KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA.

BUSINESS ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY RESIONAL OFFICE SCO

332-334 , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

MR. NEERAJ GAUR, ADVOCATE DATED: 24/02/2026

ORDER

1. There is a delay of 155 days in the filing of this revision petition. The delay condonation application IA/1801/2026 narrates that since the counsel was in the process of shifting his office. The file was inadvertently misplaced and remained untraceable which was ultimately found on 17.01.2026. The explanation seems to be that it had got mixed up with some other file and had been tagged with the same as a result whereof 110 days delay has been explained. There is no explanation with regard to the entire period and even otherwise such an explanation seems to be an excuse and not a valid explanation where the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531 analyzed the approach that has been explained in paragraphs 30 to 32 as follows:

“30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial

31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an “explanation” and an “excuse”. An “explanation” is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an “explanation” from an “excuse”. Although people tend to see “explanation” and “excuse” as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

32. An “excuse” is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an “excuse” would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.”

2. The revision petition even otherwise arises out of a complaint with regard to an insurance claim of theft of a car. Accordi