JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner heard. 2. There was delay of 115 days in filing the first appeal before the State Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission. The delay has been explained in para 10 of the application, which is reproduced as under: “10. That, delay of 115 days in filing the appeal is caused due to misplacement of file concerned from the matter in the office of Appellant/Opposite Party Company, and due to taking time in receiving the judgment of appeal and due to mistake held inadvertently which is not caused knowingly, the Opposite Party Insurance Company acts in accordance with the prescribed procedure, wherein, time consumption is certain. There is no any intention of the Opposite Party Insurance Company to cause delay in -3- filing the appeal. But, many times, time consumes in initiation of proceedings in accordance with the working method and procedure prescribed to the insurance companies by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, as occurred in the present matter, which is liable to be condoned.” 3. I have perused the application for condonation of delay. There is procedural and departmental delay and the second ground is that the file was lost in the office of insurance company. It is well settled that departmental and procedural delay is not a good ground for condonation of delay. Again, day-to-day delay has not been explained. It is not explained who had got the file misplaced and what action was taken against him. Even the necessary names are missing. This is a cock and bull story upon which no reliance can be placed. 4. There is huge delay of 115 days. The above said facts stand fortified by the following authorities. -4- 5. In the celebrated authority reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “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”. 6. In another authority reported in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold: “13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the -5- usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” -6- 7. Again, the Supreme Court took the similar view in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361; Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221. 8. The case is hopelessly barred by time. There is no need to discuss the merits of this case. 9. The revision petition is dismissed. 10. The orders passed by the fora below will not be taken as a precedent in other cases. | 
