An institution cannot seek condonation of delay in filing an appeal by attributing the failure to a single official or employee; the responsibility for adhering to limitation periods rests with the institution itself.

ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner/opposite party no.1 being aggrieved of the order dated 28.01.2026, passed by the learned Puducherry State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the ‘State Commission’) in Misc. Application No.34 of 2025 in an un-numbered First Appeal No. …2025, arising out of the Order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Puducherry (for short the ‘District Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 14 of 2012.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned State Commission has dismissed the First Appeal filed before it on the ground of delay only, without going into merits. The grounds of delay has not been considered by the learned State Commission in the right perspective hence, the impugned order should be set aside.

4. Considered the submissions and perused the impugned order.

5. The impugned order shows that the learned State Commission has dismissed the delay condonation application for condoning the delay of 237 days in filing the appeal before it. The learned State Commission has observed that it is established from the record that the order passed by the learned District Commission on 31.07.2024 came into the knowledge of the legal officer of the petitioner as the matter was circulated in the Media and Newspapers. A letter was written by the legal officer of the petitioner for getting the free copy of the order. A free copy was made available to the petitioner on 28.08.2024. The ground taken by the petitioner that the legal officer might have misplaced the copy of the order as this fact could not be ascertained due to the demise of the concerned legal officer. In the opinion of the learned State Commission this ground for condonation of delay is not acceptable because being an institution the blame cannot be put on one individual / official for not filing the appeal within the limitation period.

6. The learned State Commission further observed that the petitioner should have taken necessary follow-up action on the order, especially when the petitioner was fully aware of the passing of the order and had intention to file appeal as revealed by their letter dated 26.08.2024. Learned State Commission has further observed that the free copy was given on 28.08.2024 and legal officer expired on 05.02.2025 i.e. beyond the limitation period of 45 days for filing the appeal. Hence, in the opinion of the learned State Commission the ground was not found sufficient to condone the delay of 237 days in filing the appeal.

7. In the considered opinion of this Bench, there appears no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The impugned order is a well-reasoned judgment. The grounds taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay is not sufficient to condone a huge delay of 237 days. Hence, the present revision deserves dismissal and is dismissed accordingly at the stage of admission itself.

Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Let the file be consigned in the record room after necessary action.