NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1294/2025 (Against the Order dated 5th May 2022 in Appeal SC/9/A/2006/950 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/12093/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)

NC/IA/12094/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRIAL RECORDS)

NC/IA/12090/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

SMT SUMAN SINGH W/o. Sh. Arun Kumar Dwivedi PRESENT ADDRESS - F 31-A, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR CITYKANPUR NAGAR,UTTAR PRADESH.

SH. ARUN KUMAR DWIVEDI S/o. Sh. Madan Mohan Dwivedi PRESENT ADDRESS - 31-A, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR CITYKANPUR NAGAR,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus DR LATE CHANDRALEKHA SINGH W/o. Dr. Balram Singh PRESENT ADDRESS - SUSHILA SURGICAL CLINIC MATERNITY HOME 974, W-1, SAKET NAGAR, KANPUR CITY , KANPUR NAGAR,UTTAR PRADESH.

DR. BALRAM SINGH Through its Proprietor PRESENT ADDRESS - SUSHILA SURGICAL CLINIC MATERNITY HOME974 W-1, SAKET NAGAR, KANPUR CITY , KANPUR NAGAR,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

MS. PARUL SHARMA, ADV. (IN VC)

DATED: 15/12/2025

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioners/complainants being aggrieved of the order dated 01.06.2022, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 950 of 2006, arising out of the Order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanpur City, (for short the ‘District Commission) in Consumer Case No. 17/1999.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on the delay condonation application being IA/12090/2025.

3. The present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 1127 days as reported by the Registry and a delay of 1121 days as mentioned by the petitioners beyond the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of the revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that this petition could not be filed within time, for the reason that the Advocate who was representing the petitioner in appeal before the concerned State Commission on behalf of the appellants/revisionists sent one of his associate / colleague to argue the appeal before the learned State Commission. The appellants / revisionists have engaged the counsel with the faith that he will argue the case, but the same was not done. Thereafter, when she contacted the family of the counsel in the year 2025, she came to know that the counsel died in the year

2023. Hence, the delay should be condoned.

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

6. The impugned order was passed on 01.06.2022. The main reason advanced for condonation of delay is that the appeal was argued not by the counsel engaged, but by his associate. This cannot be treated as a sufficient and convincing ground to condone such a huge delay of 1127 days.

7. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time, without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

In Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-

2055/2022, decided on 25.02.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be