National Consumer Commission Rejects Senior Citizen's Delayed Electricity Meter Case
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) 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 for filing the revision petition against the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's orders.
Background of the Electricity Meter Dispute
The case originated from Complaint Case No.108 of 2018 filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Fatehgarh Sahib. The core dispute involved an electricity meter that was initially installed at an incorrect location. Following the petitioner's complaint, the meter placement was corrected by the authorities.
The petitioner subsequently contested the State Commission's orders dated May 26, 2023 and August 10, 2023 in First Appeal No.562 of 2022. These orders had upheld the District Commission's decision from May 13, 2022.
The Significant Delay in Filing
The revision petition was filed with a substantial delay of 679 to 707 days beyond the prescribed 90-day period for such filings under the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner, through counsel, argued for condonation of this delay based on being an 83-year-old senior citizen with limited financial means and age-related health issues.
The petitioner claimed that time was consumed in seeking legal aid for filing the present petition, and that these circumstances justified the extraordinary delay in pursuing the consumer complaint regarding electricity supply issues.
Court's Observations and Analysis
The NCDRC bench, presided over by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Saroj Yadav, heard arguments on both the delay condonation application (IA/13457/2025) and the merits of the revision petition itself. The court carefully examined whether the reasons provided for the delayed complaint were sufficient and convincing enough to justify condoning such a significant delay.
The Commission also evaluated whether there was any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by both the District and State Consumer Forums below.
Key Findings and Verdict
The NCDRC made several critical observations in its judgment dated January 5, 2026:
- The reasons provided in the delay condonation application and during submissions were deemed insufficient and unconvincing to justify condoning such a substantial delay in filing the revision petition.
- On examining the merits of the case, the Commission found no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by both the lower consumer forums.
- The court determined that the petitioner had failed to provide adequate justification for the delayed complaint regarding electricity supply issues.
Consequently, the revision petition (REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1414/2025) was dismissed at the admission stage itself, being both time-barred and lacking substantive merits. Any pending interim applications in the matter were disposed of accordingly.
Legal Context and Implications
This case was filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which governs revision petitions before the National Commission. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in consumer protection matters, even when petitioners cite age and financial constraints as mitigating factors.
The decision highlights that while consumer forums may consider genuine hardships, they maintain strict standards regarding delay condonation applications, particularly when delays extend to hundreds of days beyond prescribed limits.
