Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Petition assails an order dated 20.12.2023, passed in Revision Petition No.1106 of 2020 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘National Commission’) dismissing a Revision Petition filed by the writ petitioner for condoning the delay of 331 days in filing the Revision Petition.

2. The Revision Petition was filed against an order dated 27.08.2019 in First Appeal No.155 of 2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana, at Hyderabad (‘State Commission’) whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner (opposite party Nos.1 and 2 before the State Commission) was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution. By the impugned order dated 20.12.2023, the National Commission dismissed the writ petitioner’s Revision Petition on the ground that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause in the application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petition and that the Consumer Complaint (filed by the respondent No.3 in the Revision Petition) was to be disposed of in a time-bound manner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (Revision Petitioner before the National Commission) submits that the impugned order is erroneous and warrants interference. According to counsel, the National Commission failed to take into account the grounds raised in the petitioner’s I.A. for condonation of delay which included the disruptions caused by the Covid-19 Pandemic. Counsel further submits that the National Commission ought to have granted the petitioner the benefit of the suo motu order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 extending the periods of limitation in light of the Pandemic.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/Complainant submits that the Supreme Court order discussed above was passed subsequent to the expiry of the limitation period for filing the Revision Petition before the National Commission. Counsel submits that the petitioner had also failed to appear before the State Commission by reason of which the State Commission was constrained to dismiss the petitioner’s Appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Hyderabad (‘District Forum’) on 19.12.2016. Counsel further submits that 10 years have passed since the order of the District Forum granting relief to the respondent No.3/Complainant despite which the Complainant is yet to enjoy the benefit of the District Forum’s order.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

6. The question before us is whether the National Commission erred in refusing to condone the delay of 331 days in filing the Revision Petition. For this purpose, we deem it fit to assess the reasons stated in the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay filed before the National Commission.

7. The prayer in the I.A. is for condonation of 401 days delay in filing the Revision Petition. The reasons stated are as follows:

               (i) The impugned order of dismissal for non-prosecution of the petitioner’s First Appeal No.155 of 2017 was passed by the State Commission on 27.08.2019. The petitioner’s counsel neither attended the hearing before the State Commission on the said date nor did they inform the petitioner of the said order.

               (ii) The petitioner was served with a Notice on 16.07.2020 by the District Forum-III, Hyderabad of an Execution Petition (E.A.No.12 of 2020) filed by the complainant asking the petitioner to appear on 20.07.2020. The petitioner remained under the bona fide impression that the First Appeal filed before the State Commission was pending adjudication. Consequently, the petitioner addressed a letter on 16.07.2020 to his counsel intimating him about the execution proceedings and inter alia seeking an update in respect of the case. Even at the said stage, the petitioner was unaware of the factum of dismissal of their First Appeal and had requested the counsel to check on the status of their Stay Application in the First Appeal.

               (iii) The petitioner’s counsel informed the petitioner that he would appear before the Execution Court on 20.07.2020. Further, the petitioner informed his counsel that he had engaged the services of another counsel and requested the counsel not to appear before the Execution Court on 20.07.2020 and to hand over the files to the petitioner’s representative.

               (iv) The petitioner received the files from his counsel’s office and perused them on 13.08.2020 and only they came to know that the First Appeal had been dismissed for default. The petitioner subsequently sent a mail to his erstwhile counsel on 13.08.2020 seeking an explanation for his non-appearance.

               (v) The petitioner thereafter approached an Advocate in Delhi on 20.08.2020. The petitioner approached the Registry of the District Forum to obtain some more papers for clarification of issues raised by the new Advocate.

               (vi) The petitioner provided the clarifications to their new Advocate on 15.09.2020. However, the office staff of the petitioner’s Advocate were diagnosed with Covid and his Advocate also fell ill thereafter.

               (vii) The Advocate sent a draft of the Revision Petition to the petitioner on 12.10.2020. The petitioner suggested changes and reverted to his Advocate on 16.10.2020. The Revision Petition was filed thereafter with a delay of 401 days.

8. It is evident from the above that the delay was attributable to the petitioner himself and the petitioner hence cannot evade responsibility by placing the blame on his counsel. The statements made in the application for condonation of delay reflect that the petitioner engaged three new Advocates one after the other without paying heed to the limitation period for filing the Revision Petition before the National Commission. The continuous change of Advocates clearly contributed to the inordinate delay, which, even according to the petitioner, was 401 days. Significantly, the petitioner’s Appeal before the State Commission was also dismissed on 27.08.2019 by the order which records:

               “…Continuously there has been no representation for the Appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution…”

9. The petitioner’s argument of the National Commission ignoring the Supreme Court order Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 which excludes the applicable limitation periods from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 pursuant to the Covid-19 Pandemic for computing the limitation period will not be applicable to this case. In the present case, the State Commission order was passed on 27.08.2019.

10. Hence, the limitation for filing a Revision Petition before the National Commission expired on 25.11.2019. The applicable period as ordered by the Supreme Court by reason of the Covid-19 Pandemic commenced from 15.03.2020 which was subsequent to expiry of the petitioner’s limitation for approaching the National Commission. It is also significant that the petitioner did not take the ground of the Supreme Court’s order regarding the Covid-19 Pandemic in any of the grounds in the application for condonation of delay before the National Commission.

11. The reliance placed by counsel on Rule 8(9) of The Telangana Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, needs to be separately dealt with.

12. Rule 8(9) of the 1987 Rules provides that the Order of the State Commission on Appeal shall be signed and dated by the Members of the State Commission constituting the Bench and shall be communicated to the parties free of charge. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has orally submitted that the period of limitation should start from the date on which such free copy is communicated to the petitioner.

13. Neither the condonation application before the National Commission nor the Writ Petition filed before this Court contains any particulars with regard to the communication of the State Commission’s order to the petitioner or the specific date on which the limitation period for filing the Revision before the National Commission would commence. The only point raised is that the petitioner’s Advocate failed to communicate the order of the State Commission to the petitioner and that the petitioner hence cannot be blamed for the negligence of its Advocate.

14. Since the petitioner did not file any particulars with regard to the facts relatable to Rule 8(9) of the 1987 Rules, the Court requested the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.5/District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III to look into the records and inform the Court of the relevant date i.e., date on which the free copy of the order is communicated to the petitioner. The Assistant Government Pleader filed a Memo dated 22.06.2026 enclosing the Despatch Register of the respondent No.5 which discloses that the free copy of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2/National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was despatched to the writ petitioner on 25.09.2019 by way of an ordinary post.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to dispute the statement made in the Memo relating to dispatch of the free copy of the impugned order to the petitioner on 25.09.2019 by submitting that the free copy was sent to the Bombay address of the petitioner which was not functional at the relevant point of time.

16. We consider the objection made to the Memo by learned counsel for the petitioner to be without any corroborative basis. As stated above, the petitioner has not taken the point with regard to Rule 8(9) of the 1987 Rules either in the Writ Petition or in the condonation application filed before the respondent No.2.

17. Notably, the condonation application also does not provide any basis for the calculation of a delay of 401 days and the starting point of limitation for arriving at such calculation.

18. The above reasons persuade us to agree with the reasons stated in the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 by which the National Commission refused to condone the delay of 331 days on the ground of absence of sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the Revision Petition. We particularly agree with the observation made by the respondent No.2 that Consumer Complaints need to be disposed of in a time-bound manner and that condoning a delay of almost one year would defeat the purpose of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit.

19. W.P.No.6572 of 2024, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.