M/S AIR ASIA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. MR. AMIT ANAND & ANR.

19.07.2024 RP/26/2024

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed on 21.05.2024 (vide reference no. A24050013245 through online mode) and 29.05.2024 (physically) challenging the impugned order dated 14.02.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 564/2021 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- V (North-West District), CSC, Block C, Pocket-C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 wherein the application moved by the complainant/respondent no.1 praying for taking off the written statement of the opposite party no.1/revisionist from the record was allowed.

2. This order shall dispose of an application (IA No.1875/2024)

seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petition, filed along with the Revision Petition. Affidavit of Ms. Vanshika Chandra, Authorized Signatory of the revisionist has been filed along with the Revision Petition.

3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

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, 2019 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. 3 of the application reads as under:

“3. That upon gaining knowledge of the order dated 14.02.2024 issued by the Ld. Commision, the Petitioner promptly prepared this instant Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order. The delay in filing was inadvertent, resulting from the ill-health of the local counsel of the Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 1. The Revision Petition was filed immediately after receipt of the certified copy of the order on 11.05.2024.”

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 14.02.2024 and the present revision petition has been filed on 21.05.2024 (vide reference no. A24050013245 through online mode) and 29.05.2024 (physically) with a delay of 7 days and 15 days respectively.

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 the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the