I (2013) CPJ 5B (NC) (CN)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Honble Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member & Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member
NANDINI BHAJIPALA VA FALFALAWAL UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH
MARYADITPetitioner
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.Respondent
Revision Petition No. 4202 of 2011 arising out of Order dated 24.12.2010 in First Appeal
No. A/09/805 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai
Decided on 20.11.2012
ORDER
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding MemberThere is delay of 277 days in filing this
revision petition. The delay is explained in para no. 3 of the application which is reproduced
as follows:
As the petitioner did not know any counsel in Delhi. It took time to look for the
proper counsel and to arrange papers for filing the revision petition before Hon'ble
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Therefore, the delay caused in filing the Revision Petition is unintentional and the
same deserves to be condoned.
2. By no stretch of imagination, the above said ground can constitute a sufficient ground
for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is well settled that where
certain rights had accrued to the opposite party by order of State Commission, it could not be
deprived of same for carelessness on the part of the petitioner. As delay of each day is not
explained and no sufficient cause for delay is shown, the application for condonation has to
be dismissed; This view finds support from various authorities which are noted below.
3. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ
63 (SC), it was held, It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in
such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of
limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals
and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer
disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against
the orders of the Consumer Foras.
4. In recent judgment rendered by this Commission in case Mahindra Holidays &
Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Vasant Kumar H. Khandelwal & Anr., Revision Petition NO. 1848 of
2012 decided on 21.05.2012 by the bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan which
has got almost the similar facts, the delay of 104 days was not condoned.
5. Similar view was taken in a recent authority by the Apex Court in case reported as
Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr, 2012
STPL (Web) 132 Supreme Court.
6. In Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. Decided on 08.07.2010 in Civil
Appeal No. 1166/2006, the apex court was pleased to hold that
The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps
within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary
delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have
been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.[Advanced Law
 Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]
7. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed as time barred.
Revision Petition dismissed.