APTECH LTD. Vs. PREM LATA BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the records of the Registry, there is 413 days delay in filing these Revision Petitions. The Petitioner filed IA Nos.6424 of 2020 and 6439 of 2020 respectively seeking condonation of delay. In the said IAs, the Petitioner has stated that the Revision Petitions have been filed against the order of the Delhi State Commission dtd. 7/6/2019 in FA Nos. 298 of 2014 and 299 of 2014 with a delay of 210 days. The Petitioner contends that the filing of the present Revision Petitions incurred a delay attributable to the subsequent misplacement of the free copy of the order dtd. 7/6/2019, necessitating its retrieval for submission to the Legal Department for the purpose of initiating an Appeal / Revision Petition against the order of the learned State Commission. Subsequently, the Petitioner sought the engagement of local counsel in Delhi for filing of these Revision Petitions before this Commission, and the entire case files forwarded to the said counsel in December 2019. However, the office of the local counsel was closed due to winter vacation, delaying the procurement of certified copies until January 2020. Thereafter, the local counsel commenced drafting of these Revision Petitions in March 2020, which remained incomplete due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as it induced nationwide lockdown, resulting in the counsel office re-opening only in mid July 2020. The Petitioner diligently attempted to obtain a certified copy of the order from their office, but this endeavour spilled over into March 2020, coinciding with the lockdown declaration and consequent closure of various Courts, Tribunals, and Consumer Complaint Redressal Forums. As a result, advocates and clerks were barred from appearing before these entities, impeding access to necessary documentation. Consequently, the petitioner faced significant challenges in collecting and drafting the Revision Petitions and, therefore, as per him there is a delay of 193 days in filing these Revision Petitions. The petitioner emphasizes that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but rather a consequence of circumstances detailed in the applications seeking condonation of delay and also due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is beyond the petitioner's control. Moreover, the petitioner asserts that the balance of convenience favours their position and he has strong cases on merits and there is a great likelihood in succeeding in the present proceedings. The Petitioner also stated that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, if the present applications are not allowed. He, therefore, seeks the delay be condoned in both the cases.

(2.) As regards period of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 inter alia stipulates that:--

(3.) In the present Revision Petitions, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 7/6/2019. The limitation for filing of these Revision Petitions before this Commission is 90 days. However, the period of limitation for filing these Revision Petitions would commence from the date of receipt of the impugned Order by the Petitioner i.e. 17/6/2019, while the limitation lapsed on 14/9/2019. However, the present Revision Petition was filed on 1/11/2020. Therefore, there is a delay of 413 days (15/9/2019 to 31/10/2020) in filing of these present Revision Petitions.