National Consumer Court Rejects Senior Citizen's Delayed Petition in Electricity Meter Case
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in New Delhi has dismissed a revision petition filed by an 83-year-old senior citizen challenging orders related to electricity meter placement and alleged delays in filing. The petitioner, Rup Chand Bhardwaj, sought condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period, citing age-related difficulties and limited means, but the court found these reasons insufficient to justify the significant delay.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The case originated from Complaint Case No. 108 of 2018 filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Fatehgarh Sahib. The dispute arose when the electricity meter was initially installed at an incorrect location. Following the petitioner's grievance, the meter placement was corrected. However, the petitioner contested subsequent orders dated May 26, 2023, and August 10, 2023, in First Appeal No. 562 of 2022, leading to the revision petition before the NCDRC.
Key Legal Issues Examined
The court focused on three primary issues in this case. First, whether the delay of 679 to 707 days beyond the prescribed 90-day period for filing the revision petition could be condoned. Second, whether there was any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the lower consumer fora. Third, whether the petitioner provided a convincing explanation for the delayed complaint regarding electricity supply issues.
The revision petition was filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh, which had upheld the District Commission's order from May 13, 2022.
Court Proceedings and Findings
During the hearing, the court considered the delay condonation application (IA/13457/2025) along with the memo of revision. The registry reported a delay of 707 days, while the petitioner mentioned 679 days beyond the 90-day statutory limit. The petitioner's counsel argued that as an 83-year-old senior citizen with limited means and age-related health issues, the petitioner faced difficulties in timely filing and required time to seek legal aid.
However, the court, presided over by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Saroj Yadav, found the reasons provided in the delay condonation application and during submissions to be insufficient and unconvincing. The court emphasized that such a substantial delay could not be condoned based on the presented explanations.
Furthermore, on examining the merits of the case, the court found no evidence of illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by both the District Commission and the State Commission. The lower fora had appropriately addressed the electricity meter placement issue after the petitioner's initial complaint.
Final Decision and Disposition
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the revision petition at the admission stage itself, declaring it both time-barred and lacking substantive merits. The court's judgment, dated January 5, 2026, in Revision Petition No. NC/RP/1414/2025, concluded that neither the delay justification nor the legal grounds warranted intervention. Any pending interim applications were disposed of accordingly as part of the final ruling.
This case highlights the strict adherence to statutory timelines in consumer protection matters, even when petitioners cite advanced age and limited resources. The NCDRC's decision reinforces that while courts may consider individual circumstances, substantial delays require compelling justifications that were absent in this instance. The ruling also affirms the proper handling of the electricity meter dispute by the lower consumer commissions, finding no legal errors in their proceedings or conclusions.
