AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THERE is delay of 277 days in filing this revision petition. The delay is explained in para no. 3 of the application which is reproduced as follows: - "As the petitioner did not know any counsel in Delhi. It took time to look for the proper counsel and to arrange papers for filing the revision petition before Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Therefore, the delay caused in filing the Revision Petition is unintentional and the same deserves to be condoned. "
BY no stretch of imagination, the above said ground can constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is well settled that where certain rights had accrued to the opposite party by order of State Commission, it could not be deprived of same for carelessness on the part of the petitioner. As delay of each day is not explained and no sufficient cause for delay is shown, the application for condonation has to be dismissed; This view finds support from various authorities which are noted below. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it was held, "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the 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 this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras. "
IN recent judgment rendered by this Commission in case Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. v. Vasant Kumar H. Khandelwal and Anr., Revision Petition No. 1848 of 2012, decided on 21.05.2012 by the bench headed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan which has got almost the similar facts, the delay of 104 days was not condoned.
SIMILAR view was taken in a recent authority by the Apex Court in case reported as Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., I (2012) CLT 338 (SC)=II (2012) SLT 312=2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC). In Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., V (2010) SLT 790=Civil Appeal No. 1166/2006, decided on 08.07.2010, in the apex court was pleased to hold that - "The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005] "
IN the result, the revision petition is dismissed as time barred. Revision Petition dismissed.