Oral:
1. As per the reports of the Registry, there is a delay of 223 and 224 days in filing these Revision Petitions. Accordingly, IA Nos. 10122 & 10170 of 2026 have been filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay. In the said IAs, it is contended that the Petitioner filed the accompanying Revision Petitions against the final Common Judgment passed by the Kerala State Commission dated 22.09.2025 in Appeal No. 808 of 2017 and Appeal No. 19 of 2018. The impugned order was passed on 22.09.2025 and the certified copy of the same was prepared on 16.10.2025 and was provided to the Petitioner on 23.10.2025. Accordingly, the period of 90 days expired on 21.01.2026. There is, therefore, a delay of 223 & 224 days in filing the present Revision Petitions. It was contended that the Petitioner is situated in Kasaragod District, which is in the northern part of the Kerala, whereas the State Commission is at Thiruvananthapuram, in the southern part of the State. Owing to the considerable distance, effective coordination between the Advocate entrusted with the matter and the Petitioner could not be maintained. The person handling the matter at the relevant point of time left the establishment. Since the matter was pending before the State Commission since the year 2017 and the impugned order came to be passed only in the year 2025, the passing and communication of the impugned order could not be adequately and promptly communicated to the Petitioner. Consequently, there was a lapse in coordination which resulted in the delay. It was contended that as soon as the matter was brought to the notice of the Branch Manager, immediate steps were taken to approach this Commission. However, since the Petitioner is based in Kerala, sometime was required to identify and engage an Advocate at Delhi to entrust the matter and to take necessary steps for filing the Revision Petitions. The relevant documents, Affidavits, Vakalatnama and other necessary documents were arranged and executed after obtaining the requisite approval of the drafts. These steps necessarily consumed some time. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but was due to the said bona fide circumstances beyond their immediate control.
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:-
"Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-
i) Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order..."
3. In the present Revision Petitions, the State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 22.09.2025. The limitation for filing the Revision Petition before this Commission is 90 days. However, the period of limitation for filing the Revision Petitions would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Petitioner i.e. 23.10.2025 while the limitation lapsed on 20.01.2026, the present Revision Petitions was filed only on 01.09.2025 and 02.09.2025. Therefore, there is a delay of 223 days (21.01.2026 to 31.08.2026) and 224 days (21.01.2026 to 01.09.2026) in filing of the present Revision Petitions.
4. As regards scope for Condonation of delay in filing an Appeal/Revision Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361", has observed:
"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."
5. The test to be applied while dealing with such cases is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. Hon'ble Supreme Court in RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108 held:
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578" has also observed as under:-
"while deciding the application filed, for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and that the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated appeals and revision petitions are entertained".
7. To condone such delay in filing, the Petitioner needs to satisfy that there was sufficient cause for filing the same after lapse of the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' was explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 that:-
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or 'remained inactive'. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory application is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose."
8. In Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), the NCDRC held:-
"12......... we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggawal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, will get defeated if the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lingeswaran Etc. Vs Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022 has held that:-
"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 decided on 08.04.2024 held:
"30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra)."
11. From the above orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and that the applicant must satisfy that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting its case. Unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, a Court should not normally allow the application for Condonation of delay under this Act.
12. The Consumer Protection law inherently mandates summery procedures and it is essential for the petitioner to ensure timely filing of this Petition or explain the delay with reasonable and justifiable reasons. The statutory timelines for filing the Revision Petition are well defined. Examination of the material on record and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel reveals that the impugned order in the case was passed on 22.09.2025 and the period of limitation, commenced from the date of receipt of the order on 23.10.2025, while the limitation lapsed on 20.01.2026. It is an admitted position that the present Revision Petition Nos. 921 & 928 of 2026 against the order of the learned State Commission dated 22.09.2025 were filed on 01.09.2026 and 02.09.2026. Therefore, there is a delay of 223 days (21.01.2026 to 31.08.2026) and 224 days (21.01.2026 to 01.09.2026) in filing of the present Revision Petitions which the Petitioner failed to explain as required under law. It is a clear that while limitation lapsed on 20.01.2026, and Petitioner was expected to file the same within time, this Revision Petitions were filed on 01.09.2026 and 02.09.2026. Thus, there were 223 & 224 days delay which need to be explained. However, he failed to show sufficient reason and cause for delay of each day as required.
13. The reasons stated in the instant case are routine in nature and grossly inadequate to justify such protracted delay. There is no justification for such undue delay while facts of the case are otherwise already known to the Petitioner. The reasons explained do not reflect that the Petitioner has taken actions necessary under law in time.
14. With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for such undue delay in filing the present petition. Therefore, the prayers in Applications filed seeking Condonation of delay cannot be granted and accordingly, the same are disallowed on the above grounds.
15. In view of the foregoing, the IA No. 10122 and 10170 of 2026 filed by the Petitioner are disallowed. Consequently, the Revision Petition Nos. 921 of 2026 and Revision Petition No. 928 of 2026 are dismissed.
16. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
