IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 116 OF 2026 (Against the order dated 19.01.2024 in Appeal No. 979/2004 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consum er Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow)

W ith IA/1233/2026 (c/d) 1. Union of India, Secretary M inistry of Com munication, New Delhi -

Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road - 110001

2. Senior Postmaster, Head Post Office, Moradabad, Gurhatti, Civil Lines, Uttar pradesh-244001 Petitioner (s)

Versus Smt. Sudha Khanna w/o Late Shri Vishan Narayan Khanna, Mohalla Atai (Bagia) Moradabad, District Moradabad, Uttar pradesh-244001 Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Hilal Haider, Advocate (V.C)

Dated : 26.02.2026

ORDER

1.

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 19.01.2024 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh in FA No. 979 of 2004. The RP has been filed with a delay of 347 days as per calculations made by the Registry of NCDRC.

2. In order to condone the delay in filing the RP, the Petitioners have to satisfy this Com mission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the RP after the stipulated limitation period. An IA No. 1233 of 2026 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, period of delay mentioned is 423 and following reasons for delay / grounds for condonation have been mentioned:

(a) That the appellants have filed the accom panied revision petition. Thus the contents of the same may be treated as part and parcel of the present application and the same are not reproduced for the same are not reproduced for sake of brevity and conciseness. Certified copies of file received later and appointed a counsel for Union of India. That is the true region, present R.P.

did not file within the stipulated period.

(b) That the appellants have no other alternate remedy except filing the present application for condonation of delay of 423 days. That the counsel for the respondents received incomplete records of below forums, same were &

very dgem and not readable. That the translations and dim annexure received from the translator too late. Hence the present interlocutory application has been filed.

(c) That the delay in filing the instant appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and is bonafide and procedural which is liable to be condoned and the appeal may kindly be heard and decided on merit.

3. A perusal of the records before us show that the impugned order of the State Commission, was pronounced on 19.01.2024 and the present RP has been filed on 12.12.2025 i.e. after a period of 693 days. Allowing the period of 256 days for getting the first free certified copy of the impugned order, which was obtained on 01.10.2024, and the statutory permissible period of 90 days, pthe delay in filing RP comes to 347 days.

4. W e have carefully gone through the reasons for delay / grounds for condonation mentioned in IA No. 1233 of 2026 as well as those adduced during the hearing in the light of observations/decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Com mission in various cases. In Sheo Raj Singh (deceased)

I through Legal Respresentative and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ann (2023) 10 SCC 531, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed 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 lengths of delay being immaterial, each case for condonation of delay based on the existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. In Basawaraj and Another. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that when a case is filed beyond the limitation period, the applicant must dem onstrate "sufficient cause," meaning an adequate and enough reason for not approaching the court within the prescribed t