Order dated 5.06.09 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 506/04 is sought to be challenged through this petition purportedly u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection ..2. Act, 1986. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, BSNL against the order dated 22.04.04 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki in O.P no. 140/03 by which the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and had awarded the compensation of Rs.3.5 lakh to the complainant with interest and costs. The State Commission by the impugned order while partly allowing the appeal has modified the order of the District Forum by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.3.5 lakh to Rs.1.69 lakh. Still not contended, the petitioner, BSNL has chosen to file these proceedings. At the outset, we may notice that this petition has been filed after delay of 182 days. Though an application for condonation of delay has been filed, we find no satisfactory reason/explanation except the routine ground put forth by the petitioner that the delay was due to administrative reasons. Any person who seeks indulgence of any court/forum to exercise discretion in his favour for condonation of delay, must give sufficient reason and explain each day’s delay in the application before he can seek the exercise of such a discretion in his favour. To say the least, no attempt has been made in that direction while making the application. We find that the petitioner has deliberately delayed the filing of these proceedings and, therefore, it is not entitled to be considered for condonation of such undue delay of 182 days. The application is accordingly declined. Even then, we have considered the merits of the case. Relying upon a recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom V. M. Krishnan & Anr. {(2009) 8 SCC 481} counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order passed by the Fora below primarily on the ground that having regard to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1889, no consumer forum can entertain such kind of a complaint. We are totally in disagreement with him because what can be said to be subject matter of arbitration u/s 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1889 is dispute relating to telephone bills, etc., and not in regard to the tortious act of the authorities of the department. We, therefore, see no force in this contention. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the concurrent finding recorded by the Fora below in regard to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, the complainants are entitled to be compensated for loss and injury sustained by them. The compensation so awarded by the State Commission does not appear to be excessive or harsh in any way. Therefore, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed. If the entire awarded amount is deposited by the petitioner, BSNL with the District Forum within a period of two weeks from today, no coercive steps such as arrest of the officials of the department, shall be taken. Dasti.