National Commission Rules on Delay in Filing Revision Petition: Key Takeaways

The NCDRC has stated that demonstrating sufficient cause does not automatically grant an extension for delay.

August 12, 2024

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by AVM J. Rajendra, reviewed a revision petition filed by the Tehsildar Taluk Office after a delay of 349 days. The Commission ruled that even if a sufficient cause is shown, the decision to grant a delay extension remains at the Court’s discretion.

Case Summary

The record showed a 349-day delay in filing the Revision Petition with the National Commission, with no application for condonation of delay submitted. The Tehsildar office/petitioner had repeatedly failed to address defects. The petitioner attributed the delay to the retirement and transfer of relevant officers, which led to procedural delays. According to Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, a Revision Petition must be filed within ninety days from receiving the certified copy of the order. The order from the State Commission of Tamil Nadu was issued beyond this period, resulting in a 349-day delay.

National Commission Observations

The National Commission noted that in Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., it was stressed that the decision to condone a delay, even with a sufficient cause, is at the Court’s discretion and involves reviewing all pertinent facts. Additionally, in RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, it was underscored that the Court must determine if the delay was adequately explained and if the petitioner showed reasonable diligence. Similarly, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority highlighted that delays in consumer matters could hinder the goal of timely adjudication if overly late appeals or revisions are accepted. The term “sufficient cause” was further clarified in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer to mean a proper explanation for the delay, not just an attempt to excuse negligence. In this case, the reasons provided for the 349-day delay—retirement and transfers of officers—were deemed routine and insufficient. Therefore, the National Commission denied the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in