1.      The Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.759/2019 arising out of the Order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasganj in Complaint No.37/2018.

2.      The petition has been filed with reported delay of 302 days. As the delay does not appear to be insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not.  Learned counsel has reiterated the ground pleaded in the delay condonation application and has added nothing to it.

3.      In order to facilitate better appreciation relevant grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application may be extracted herein below, which reads as follows:- 

“2.  That on 28.02.2020 Revisionist Bank came to know that earlier Penal Counsel was depeneled by its Head Office.

3.  On 22.11.2022 Revisionist Bank appoint new Penal Counsel for the said Appeal and also send signed Vakalatnama for pursuing the matter.

4.  That revisionist bank came to know through new counsel that the said appeal was already dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.09.2022 Appeal filed by the Revisionist bank was dismissed for non-prosecution.

5.  Thereafter on 20.03.2023 Revisionist send letter and legal fees for filing of recall application to Panel counsel before Hon’ble State Commission but nothing was done by the advocate thereafter Revisionist came to know that the Hon’ble Commission has no power to recall its own order.

6.      That on 28.05.2024 legal opinion was received by the panel counsel to the Revisionist that Hon’ble Commission has no power to recall its own order and this Hon’ble has the jurisdiction to recall the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission.

7.      That due to the said reasons present petition could not be filed on time.”

4.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the submissions all over again and it has been contended that new panel counsel was appointed on 22.11.2022.  Thereafter on 20.03.2023 instructions were given to file recall application but the panel counsel did not do anything.  Eventually, it was discovered that the State Commission did not have any power to recall its own Order.  Thereafter on 28.05.2024 legal opinion was received that the State Commission had no power to recall its own Order.  In this background the appeal has been filed with delay which should be condoned.

5.      In the ordinary course in such matters the approach which is advisably adopted by a judicial or quasi-judicial Forum as the case may be, is to lean favourably towards the defaulting petitioner who may have failed to file the petition within the limitation period. It is ordinarily preferred not to adopt a pedantic approach but to proceed with a pragmatic view and to decide the case on merits rather than to thwart the cause at the very threshold on the ground of limitation. But while saying so it does not imply that the law of limitation wherever it is provided can either be blissfully ignored or soft paddled at will. Such kind of approach will entirety frustrate and defeat the very purpose which inspires the enactment on law of limitation. The statutory law regarding limitation, wherever it is provided has a salutary purpose to serve, and has to be respected and complied with. In no case can any forum judicial or quasi-judicial can ride roughshod on the solemn provisions regarding the law which provides limitation period. It goes without saying that when a particular order attains finality it simultaneously gives rise to a right to the other side and unless there is sufficient cause, which may justify the condonation of delay and satisfy the given Fora looking into the matter that there were justifiable reasons which explain as to why the petition was not filed within the stipulated period of time, the Forum cannot act either whimsically or capriciously. The judicial discretion which even this Commission exercises in the matters of condonation of delay is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is a judicial discretion and has to be exercised judiciously. The availability of sufficient cause has to be seen in perspective of the conspicuous facts and circumstances of each case and the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds to vindicate the delayed filing has to be discharged by the petitioner who seeks judicial indulgence in this regard.

6.      When we try to evaluate the genuineness of the grounds pleaded we feel constrained to observe that none of the grounds pleaded are such which may at all earn a favourable view.  Certainly, none of the grounds may be said to be such which may constitute sufficient cause.  If the State Commission did not have the power to review its own Order it is a matter of law known to all concerned.  The petitioner is not an illiterate entity but is a well-organized institution having all wherewithal and having its own panel counsels. The impugned Order was passed on 15.09.2022 while the appeal has been filed on 20.06.2024.  In fact, if we reckon the period of limitation from the date when the free copy was supplied, we find it from the stamp affixed on the certified copy that the same has been provided on 25.05.2023.  However, even if we count the limitation from the afore-said date i.e. 25.05.2023 the period of delay has been reported to be 302 days which is not a delay in days or weeks but of several months.  The gap between the date of impugned Order and the date of filing of the petition is not trifling or trivial. For a drawn-out delay of this kind very credible and very convincing explanations are called for which are woefully lacking entirely in the present matter.      

7.      The onus to show such factual basis from which may have emanated valid reasons to vindicate the delay in filing the revision was on the petitioner.  But the petitioner has obviously failed to discharge that onus to the satisfaction of this Bench.  The Bench does not see even a semblance of an explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is without much worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming. As such the Bench has no hesitation in dismissing the application.

8.    Resultantly the petition stands dismissed on limitation.

9.      The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.