Delay of over two years proves fatal: Court dismisses 83-year-old’s petition against Punjab power utility

The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission concerning the placement of an electricity meter and an alleged delay in filing a revision petition. The petitioner, an 83-year-old senior citizen, requested condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period.Metre intalled at incorrect locationThe petitioner contested the Commission’s orders dated 26.05.2023 and 10.08.2023 in First Appeal No.562 of 2022. The original complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib, in Complaint Case No.108 of 2018. The dispute arose after the electricity meter was initially installed at an incorrect location. Following the petitioner’s grievance, the meter placement was corrected. The petitioner claimed age-related difficulties and limited means as reasons for the delay in filing the revision petition.The ‘delayed’ complaint

What the court observed1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/complainant being aggrieved of the order dated 26.05.2023 and 10.08.2023 in RA No. 12 of 2023, passed by the learned Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.562 of 2022, arising out of the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgrah Sahib (for short the ‘District Commission’) in Complaint Case No.108 of 2018.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/13457/2025 and also on the Memo of Revision.3. The present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 707 days as reported by the Registry and a delay of 679 days as mentioned by the petitioner, beyond the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of the revision petition.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an 83 old senior citizen with limited means therefore, he could not file the revision petition within the time. He further submitted that the petitioner was suffering with age related issues. The time was also consumed in seeking the legal-aid for filing of the present petition.5. The reasons given in the delay condonation application as well as the submissions made are not sufficient and convincing enough to condone such a huge delay in filing of this revision petition. Furthermore, on the merits also, there appears no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by both the foras below.The court found the reasons for the delay insufficient and unconvincing to justify condonation of such a significant delay. There was no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error identified in the orders passed by the lower fora.Verdict out The revision petition was dismissed as both time-barred and lacking merits, at the admission stage itself. Any pending interim applications were disposed of accordingly.

Case details