1.      The instant revision petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 96 of 2017-Taxila Business School vs. Ankit Bhargav.  The State Commission confirmed the order of District Forum, Jaipur.

2.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  The petitioner’s main grouse was that the State Commission dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation and confirmed the order of District Forum, Jaipur, without assigning any findings on merits of the matter.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP/petitioner to pay the balance amount of fee of Rs.15,600/- alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. till recovery.  Also, awarded Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses. 

3.      Upon perusal of impugned order of State Commission, it revealed that the petitioner aggrieved by the order of District Forum, approached the State Commission, Rajasthan after a delay of 316 days.  Hence, the State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

4.      Learned counsel vehemently argued that the delay before the 4tate Commission was not intentional.  The case is good on merits.  I have perused the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the State Commission.  The delay is explained as below:-

“That after passing of the order dated 01.02.2016 advocate who engaged by the appellant before the DCF not informed to the appellant and the address of appellant was also changed.  That after complainant filed a contempt petition before the DCF baring no. 80/2016 against the appellant and the notices of contempt petition were received to the appellant home address on 25.10.2016 and then the appellant institution got knowledge first time of the order dated 01.02.2016.  That after appellant immediately approached his counsel because neither the engaged advocate informed about the order dated 01.02.2016 and not filed certain relevant documents before DCF.  Therefore and that after in the month of January advocate of appellant obtained certified copy of the entire file from the District Forum & deposits an amount of Rs.25,000/- with FDR for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Commission and draft the appeal and filed this appeal without any further delay.”

          A bare reading of the reasons for condonation of delay was due to procedural and departmental delay.  In fact, the petitioner is a business school and rather surprising that there was only a single counsel for them.  There is nothing on record in the application about name and other details of the counsel, the petitioner had initiated any action against the previous counsel.  Therefore, under such circumstances, such huge delay shall not be condoned.  This view neatly dovetails from number of Hon’ble Supreme Court authorities.  In the case of R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari reported in 2009 (2) SCALE 108, it has been observed:

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained.  This is the basic test which needs to be applied.  The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

5.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court has not condoned the delay in the cases, namely, Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC).

6.      The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.  37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days.  Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013.  Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of  Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.  

7.      On the basis of foregoing discussion, I do not think the petitioner by any means deserves for condonation of huge delay of 316 days.  Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.