THE DIRECTOR, A.I.I.M.S & ANR. VS. VINOD KHATRI & ORS.

12.04.2022 RP-114/2018 This order will dispose of the Revision Petition alongwith an application for condonation of delay filed with the present Revision Petition.

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, 1986 or whether the revisionists are able to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present Revision Petition.

The present Revision Petition was filed on 18.09.2018, challenging the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 alongwith an application for condonation of delay for 1869 days in filing the present petition. He seeks to condone the delay in filing the present revision petition on the ground that he engaged new counsel in May 2018 and only got to know about the impugned order on 10.07.2018, when the file was inspected by the new counsel. After gaining knowledge about the impugned order, the appellant decided to file revision petition and the same was conveyed to the counsel on 07.08.2018. Thereafter, the counsel applied for certified copy on 14.08.2018, which was received by them on 07.09.2018. The appellant submitted that the delay in filing the present revision petition happened due to the aforesaid reasons and the same was neither intentional nor deliberate.

To resolve this issue, we dem it appropriate to refer to Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005, which provides as under:

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.

From the perusal of the provisions of the Regulation, it is manifestly clear that the Revision Petition has to be filed within 90 days. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 24.07.2013 and the petition has been filed on 18.09.2018 i.e. after the delay of 1822 days.

In order to condone the delay of 1822 days, the Revisionists have 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 Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”

We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs.

United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in IV (2015) C