NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1359/2025 (Against the Order dated 28th November 2024 in Appeal SC/CB1/8/A/190/2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bench jodhpur)

WITH NC/IA/12862/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)

NC/IA/12860/2025 (STAY)

NC/IA/12861/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

UNION OF INDIA PRESENT ADDRESS - NEW DELHICENTRAL,DELHI.

NORTH WESTERN RAILAWAY DRM JODHPUR PRESENT ADDRESS - JODHPURJODHPUR,RAJASTHAN.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus VINAY KOTHARI PRESENT ADDRESS - SONIKA JEWELERS BUDHARAJA , GUJRATI COLONY SAMBALPUR , NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA , SAMBALPUR,ODISHA.

BUSINESS ADDRESS - SONIKA JEWELLERS OPP HYUNDAI SHOWROOM , NEW SARKANDA BILASPUR BILASPUR,CHHATTISGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE PETITIONERS MR. SHUBHAM KUMAR, PROXY COUNSEL DATED: 10/12/2025

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 being aggrieved of the order dated 28.11.2024, passed by the learned State Rajasthan Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench at Jodhpur (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 190 of 2023, arising out of the Order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (II), Jodhpur, (for short the ‘District Commission) in Consumer Case No. 88/2017.

2. The present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 224 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of the revision petition against the impugned order.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/12861/2025.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay was caused for the reason that the petitioner is a Government body and a certain procedure is to be followed before taking a legal recourse. Therefore, the time was consumed in taking approvals at various levels. Therefore, the delay should be condoned.

5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the record.

6. As per the report of the Registry there is a delay of 224 days and as per the petitioner there is a delay of 277 days in filing of the present petition.

7. The reasons given in the delay condonation application and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not sufficient and convincing enough in the considered opinion of this Bench to condone the said delay in filing of the present petition.

8. 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. It is not in dispute that the person (s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly bids everyb