STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH I.A. No.1176 of 2025 In/and Date of Institution: 20.09.2025 Date of reserve : 12.12.2025 Date of Decision : 16.12.2025 Amritsar Improvement Trust, having its office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Chairman/Executive Officer.

……..Revisionist/Opposite Party Versus Vishal Kumar son of Rakesh Kumar R/o House No.2324/H-3, Street No.4, Dharampura, Near Joura Phatak, Amritsar, Punjab-143001.

…..Respondent/Complainant Revision Petition under Section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 12.12.2023, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. Quorum:-

Ms. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member Present:-

For the Revisionist/OP : Sh. Pankaj Kalia, Advocate MS. KIRAN SIBAL, PRESIDING MEMBER:-

I.A.No.1176 of 2025 (Delay) & Main case The applicant/revisionist has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, along with the present revision petition No.68 of 2025 against the order dated 12.12.2023, for condoning the delay of 568 days in filing the Revision Petition. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the petitioner is the Government Body working for the welfare of the society and as and when the documents regarding the petition were delivered to him, the petition was drafted and during this the limitation period was over by two days. Thereafter again an application for condonation of delay was to be submitted with the revision petition and affidavit for the same was required to be signed by the competent authority. However, in the meanwhile, the chairman of the appellant was changed twice and due to the said reason, a delay of 568 days occurred, which is neither intentional nor deliberate and has occurred due to above said unavoidable circumstances, hence prayed for condonation of said delay.

2. Heard.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 14(1)(i) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulation, 2020, 90 days period has been granted for filing the Revision Petition, provided, if any delay, sufficient reasons to the satisfaction of the Commission are given for not filing the revision petition within the prescribed period. Although the sufficient reasons have not been defined in the Act because it would vary from the facts and circumstances of each and every case, however time limit has been prescribed in the Act itself just to expedite the matter in granting the relief to the aggrieved consumers and this cannot be taken as a matter of right and the courts can exercise its powers with discretion to condone the delay with proper explanation.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present revision petition, it has been duly admitted by the applicant that the notice of the consumer complaint was issued to the petitioner on 25.10.2023, which was received by it on 27.10.2023, for putting appearance before the District Commission and the counsel for the petitioner appeared on 12.12.2023 before the District Commission and filed his power of attorney on behalf of the Trust. He sought time to file reply but the District Commission has refused to give more time by stating that 45 days for filing the written version had already been elapsed and the same cannot be extended.

5. Now, to proceed further, it is relevant to discuss the provisions of Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, which are reproduced as under:-

“Section 38: Procedure on admission of complaint

3(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Commission.”

As per above Section 38(3)(a), it is clear that the notice along with copy of the complaint, which was to be sent to the OP, is always with the directions to file written reply within a period of 30 days with further provision