BAJAJ ALLIANCE LIFE INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH PAL

17.03.2025 RP/2/2025

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed on 13.02.2025 challenging the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 112/2024 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- VIII (Central District), Kashmere Gate, Delhi- 110006 whereby right of the revisionist/opposite party to file written statement was struck off.

2. This order shall dispose of an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petition, filed along with the Revision Petition. Affidavit of Ms. Swati Seth i.e. Zonal Legal Head North-I of the revisionist has been filed along with the Revision Petition.

3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly peruseds.

4. Before deciding the present Revision Petition on merits, it has to be seen whether the Revision Petition 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 Petition.

5. The revisionist seeks to condone the delay in filing the present revision petition on the various grounds. Para No. 4 to 6 of the application reads as under:

“4. That the Revisionist on perusal of the summon of the complaint on 09.05.2024 assigned the matter to its panelled law firm in New Delhi, whereby the vakalatnama was shared for execution with the Revisionist on 10.05.2024. The entire processing of Authorization and record of other necessary documents inadvertently delayed the signing of the vakalatnama, due to which the vakalatnama couldn't be filed before the Hon'ble District Commission.

5. That on 06.08.2024, the advocate of the Revisionist appeared before the Hon'ble District Commission and undertake to file the appearance on behalf of the Revisionist but without the vakalatnama, the appearance was neither recorded nor reflected in the order and the opportunity to file the written statement has been closed on 06.08.2024.

6. That there is a delay of 181 days as yet in preferring the present Review Petition against the impugned Order dated 06.08.2024, due to the reason stated above and not otherwise.”

6. To resolve this issue, we first deem it appropriate to refer to Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005, which provides as follows:

“Section 14 Limitation:-

(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 15, 19 and 24A, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-

(i) Revision petition shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the order or the date of receipt of the order as the case may be.”

7. From the perusal of the provisions of the Regulation, it is manifestly clear that the Revision Petition has to be filed within 90 days from the date of order. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 06.08.2024 and the present revision petition has been filed on 13.02.2025 with a delay of 101 days.

8. 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 intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of