1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 28.02.2025, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 879 of 2023, arising out of the Order dated 17.11.2022, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh (for short the 'District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 123 of 2018, whereby the learned State Commission, while affirming the order passed by the learned District Commission, increased the rate of interest from 7% p.a. to 12% p.a. This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 179 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of revision petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/14589/2025, along with affidavit dated 26.11.2025 and a better affidavit dated 11.05.2026.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the free copy of the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 was received on 10.03.2025 but the counsel of the petitioner did not inform the petitioner. The petitioner was unaware of the order so passed and came to know about the passing of the impugned order when the execution proceedings started. He further submitted that it was for the very first time on 26.09.2025 when the respondent / complainant filed an application in the pending execution proceedings for remitting the balance amount in terms of the order passed by the learned State Commission. After that, approvals at different levels were required and that took time in filing the revision petition and the delay was caused. Therefore, the delay may be condoned.

4. Considered the submissions so made, perused the record and also the impugned orders passed by both the foras below.

5. The impugned order was passed on 28.02.2025 and the free copy of the same, admittedly, delivered to the petitioner on 10.03.2025. There is a reported delay of 179 days in filing of this petition. The main ground of delay as submitted by the petitioner's counsel is that the time was consumed in taking approvals at different levels of the Authority. In the considered opinion of this Bench, this ground cannot be considered a sufficient ground.

6. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time, without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

7. In the foregoing discussion, the reasons given in the application for condonation of such a huge delay are not convincing and sufficient enough to condone the delay. Such a huge delay cannot be condoned, merely for the reason that the Petitioner is a Government department. In a recent judgement Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karanataka Housing Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019) decided on 12.09.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

                          "261. .......Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude."

8. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2474 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.7595-96 of 2011) decided on 24.02.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:

                          "12. It is not in dispute that the person (s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly bids everybody including the Government."

9. In the light of above discussion, there appears no reason to condone such a huge delay. Otherwise also, there is no merit in the instant petition, as concurrent findings are there of both the foras below, except on interest point. The petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition deserves dismissal as time-barred as also on merits. Dismissed accordingly.

Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Let the file be consigned in the record room.