IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3202 OF 2024 (Against the Order dated 08.09.2022 in Appeal No. 253/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh)

Gopal Chand Agarwal, aged about — years, s/o Late Mukut Bihari Lal Agarwal, r/o B-322, Sector-B, Mahanagar, Lucknow Petitioner Versus

1. M/s. Anand Motors Agency Ltd. 21, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow, Through General Manager/Chief/M.D.

th

2. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Redg, Office: 11 Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25, Kasturba Marg, New Delhi-110001 Respondents BEFORE:

HON’BLE AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd ), PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner (s) Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate (VC)

Dated : 19.11.2025

ORDER (ORAL)

1.

As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 748 days in filing this Revision Petition. Accordingly, IA No. 18334 of 2024 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay. In the said I A, it is submitted that Appeal No.253 of 2017 was filed before the State Commission, Lucknow against the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the District Commission-ll, Lucknow. However, the State Commission erroneously passed the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the grounds urged in the appeal. After the passing the impugned order, the Petitioner intended to fife a Revision Petition immediately, but due to acute shortage of money and health issues, he could not do so within the prescribed period. He had earlier suffered a heart attack on 23.01.2010 and underwent treatment and surgical procedures from 04.03.2016 to 03.04.2024 at Medanta Hospital, Haryana. Owing to his continuing ill health, he was medically unfit and again suffered from cardiac complications requiring treatment between 14.08.2024 and 08.11.2024 and thus he was unfit continuously. It is only after arranging some financial resources that the petitioner was able to approach Shri SK Shukla, Advocate, for filing the present Revision Petition with a delay of about 455 days from the date of obtaining the free certified copy of the order dated 08.09.2022. The petitioner sought delay be condoned in the interest of justice.

2.PONMALsK JIHreGgFaEDrdCsB Aperiod of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure)

Regulations, 2020 inter alia stipulates that:-

*“Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-

i) Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order...

3. In the present Revision Petition, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 08.09.2022. The limitation for filing the Revision Petition before this Commission is 90 days. However, the period of limitation for filing the Revision Petition would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Petitioner i.e. 08.09.2022 while the limitation lapsed on 06.12.2022, the present Revision Petition was filed only on 24.12.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 748 days (07.12.2022 to 23.12.2024) in filing of the present Revision Petition.

4. As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal / Revision Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ram Lal and Ors. vs.

Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed:

"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matte