Counsel for the petitioner present. There is a delay of 176 days in filing this revision petition. Petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. He has explained the delay in para No.4, which is reproduced as follows: -2- “4. That however the Applicant’s mother who has been suffering from Lt. Hemiplegia (complete left side paralysis) needs complete attention of her family members. That the condition of the Applicant’s mother worsened and the petitioner remained at home helping her aged mother in fulfilling her daily physical activities. A true copy of the Medical Certificate of the Applicant’s / petitioner’s mother is annexed and marked with this application as Annexure-A(From page 31 to…)”. 2. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit of Alok Kumar in support of his case. He has also submitted a medical certificate from the Clinic, Sakra, Muzaffar Pur, which runs as follows: “Smt. Asha Rani Date : 27.08.2013 Sakra Bazed Age 57 years To whom it may concern This is to certify that Smt. Asha Devi, Wife of Sri Arvind Kumar Dubey, at Sakra Bazed, P.O. Dholi, P.S. Sarkra Distt. Muzaffar Pur, Bihar is under my treatment for Lt. Hemiplegia since 11.11.2012. She is completely bed ridden and she needs personal attendance. Dr. S.N. Mishra, M.B.B.S. (B) Reg. No. 15857” 3. Counsel for the petitioner admits that the patient Smt. Asha Devi was never admitted in hospital. -3- 4. Fortunately, the father of the petitioner Shri Arvind Kumar is also present in the Court. He is 62 years old. He appears to be quite healthy. On enquiry, it is further transpired that Shri Arvind Kumar has got three sons viz. Sh. Alok Kumar, Sh. Deepak Kumar and Shri Prakash Kumar, who resides in Sudan. It is difficult to fathom what was the need of three adult people namely Shri Alok Kumar, Shri Deepak Kumar and Shri Arvind Kumar to stay there for such a long time? One of them should have approached this Commission as Shri Arvind Kumar has come today and that visit is without any purpose. If the petitioner has engaged a counsel, what is need of Shri Arvind Kumar to come in the Court today? Both Shri Alok Kumar and Shri Deepak Kumar are married and have wives to look after the mother of Alok Kumar. The explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The case is barred by time. 5. Counsel for the petitioner prays that the cost be imposed. We do not accept this request because there is a huge delay of 176 days in filing the revision petition. The case is hopelessly barred by time. 6. The following authorities neatly dovetail this view: In Anshul Aggarwal V. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also opposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that -4- 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”. 7. A similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam V. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)-I (2009) SLT 701-2009 (2) Scale 108 and in Ram Lal and Others V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221. 8. The revision petition is hereby dismissed being barred by time. | 
