Order

Item no.15 ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS SATISH BABU

17.04.2023 RA-5/20 Since Presiding Officer is on official visit today, hence the matter listed today stands adjourned on 22.05.2023 (Court Master)

Item No. 33 ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS SATISH BABU

22.05.2023 Present : None for the appellant.

Mr. Satish Babu, respondent no. 01 in person. Mr. Haider Khan, counsel for the respondents.

RA-5/20 Reply to the revision petition has been filed by respondent no.01 vide diary no.

9136 dated 17.05.2023.

A perusal of record shows that an application/IA No.- 83/2020 seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application is pending.

Matter stands reserved for orders on application/IA No.- 83/2020 seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application.

(Justice SangitaDhingraSehgal)

President (Pinki)

Member (Judicial)

J.P. Agrawal Member (General)

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. SATISH BABU RA-5/2020 21.07.2023

1. This order shall dispose of an application bearing IA No.83/20 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Application.

2. Before deciding the present Revision Application on merits, it has to be seen whether the Revision Application was filed within the stipulated period provided under the Consumer Protection Act or whether the revisionist has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present Revision Application.

3. The present Revision Application was filed on 29.09.2020, challenging the impugned order dated 16.01.2020 in Complaint Case No.314/2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-V (North West District), GNCT of Delhi CSC, Block C, Pkt-C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088, alongwith an application bearing No. IA-83/2020 for condonation of delay for 240 days in filing the present revision. The revisionist seeks to condone the delay in filing the present revision petition on the ground which are mentioned in Para No. 3 and 4 of this application which read as under:

“3. That in the present case the Petitioners have been served only with the copy of notice as per order dated 04.10.2019 without copy of the complaint. Though the appellant has neither recived the copy of complaint the and nor documents were supplied to the petitioners, it as mandatory for the District Forum to supplied the copy.

4. That there is delay in filing the present Revision Petition.”

1. To resolve this issue, we first deem it appropriate to refer to Regulation/ Section

14 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulation

2020, which provides as under:

“Section 14 Limitation:-

1. 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”

1. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the revision application against an order should be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of such order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 16.01.2020 and the present Revision application was filed on

28.09.2020 with a delay of 166 days.

2. In order to condone the delay, the Revisionist has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the present Revision Petition after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose