JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioners/OPs have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the District Commission, North West in CC No.330/2024, whereby the right of the Petitioners/OPs to file written statement was closed. Alongwith the petition, the Petitioners have also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

2. By this order, we shall dispose off the application bearing IA No.2251/2025 seeking condonation of 108 days delay in filing the present revision petition.

3. The Petitioners/OPs have sought condonation of delay, inter-alia, on the following grounds:

i. …..

ii. That in the month of January, Complainant No.1 and 2 Respondent No.1 and 2 herein filed complaint case before District Commission, North West and made party with malafide intention as OP No.1 and 2 despite the fact that OP No.1 and 2 were not necessary party because Complainants has not paid any consideration to the OP No.1 and 2.

iii. That as per definition of Consumer, the Complainants not comes under the definition of the consumer of OP No.1 and 2 under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 because OP No.1 and 2 not received any payment and not provided any service to the Complainant No.1 and 2. Admitted fact by the Complainants themselves that they paid consideration to OP No.3 that IRCTC, which is responsible to provided services related to tickets and catering services, despite it Complainants made part to Appellants due to malafide intention to extort money and defame the government department.

iv. That the Ld. Commission below inadvertently issue notice on 04.01.2024 to OP No.2 and 2 and fixed for hearing on 15.10.2024.

v. That after receiving notice from the Commission, OP No.1 and 2 instructed their Additional Central Government Counsel to appear and file WS on behalf of OP No.1 and 2.

vi. That on 15.10.2024, Shivangi Kulshrestha appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and sought time to file WS but Ld. Commission below closed the rights of filing WS and fixed for hearing on 17.03.2025 without considering the fact that even OP No.1 and 2 were not necessary party.

vii. That due to expiry of panel tenure earlier counsel could not give update regarding case status to the department, hence OP No.1 and 2 could not take steps to challenge the orders passed by Ld. Commission below.

viii. That on 11.09.2025 the Department of Law and Justice published list of panel counsel and Central Govt. counsel thereafter instructed to present counsel to file appeal.

4. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 14 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, which reads as under:

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;

(ii) Application for setting aside the ex-parte order under section 61 or dismissal of the complaint in default shall be maintainable if filed within thirty days from the date of the order or date of receipt of the order, as the case may be;

(iii) an application for review under sections 40, 50 and 60 shall be filed to the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission, respectively, within thirty days from the date of the order;

5. Perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the revision petition should be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

6. In order to condone the delay, the Petitioner has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for filing the revision petition after the stipulated period. The term „sufficient cause‟ has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant par