The challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”) is to an order dated -2- 11.01.2012 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patna (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.963 of 2006. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fourm at Supaul (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Case No.113 of 2005. The District Forum had allowed the Complaint with a direction to Central Bank of India (OP-1) to inter-alia, pay to the Complainant a sum of `1 Lac as compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of theft in his shop, as the Bank had failed to pay the premium in respect of the insurance policy obtained from Oriental Insurance Company (OP-2), at the instance of the Bank, as condition for disbursing loan under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna. The State Commission has come to the conclusion that the Complainant had not placed on record any document to show that the Bank was under contractual obligation to pay premium on his behalf from his loan account, more so when the Complainant was a defaulter and the account had been declared NPA. Since there is a delay of 413 days in filing the Revision Petition, we have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of condonation of delay. -3- For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion of the explanation, furnished by the Petitioner, for delay in filing the revision petitions is extracted below: 5. That from perusal of entire ordersheet passed in the said First Appeal NO.963/2006 it is evident that the Notice for appearance of the Complainant was issued on 13.12.2006 but the same was never communicated to the Complainant neither it is mentioned in the said ordersheet about the date of communication of the said notice. Hence, evidently the appeal was decided ex parte on 11.01.2012 for which the complainant had no knowledge and the said order was prepared vide Memo No.194 dated 16.11.2012 i.e. after about 10 months of the passing of the order, hence the revision was due to be filed on 13.02.2013 from the date of memo but it is being filed today on 03.04.2014 after delay of about 413 days due to following reasons: a) When the Complainant received the said order he immediately filed Misc. Case NO.04/2013 on 24.01.2013 for recalling the said order, but unfortunately it was dismissed in absence of the Complainant on 07.03.2013. -4- b) Thereafter, the Complainant preferred another Misc. Case No.15/2013 for review/recall of order dated 11.01.2012 passed in the said appeal, but the Hon’ble State Commission again dismissed the same with cost of Rs.25,000/- on 10.07.2013. c) After receiving order of the said Misc. Case No.15/2013 the Complainant contacted his Advocate, who advised him to prefer revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission against the said order of the Hon’ble State Commission. d) The Complainant was ready to rush to Delhi for filing the present revision petition but suddenly he suffered severe low backache due to which he was not able to walk and therefore he had to undergo treatment at Triveniganj Referral Hospital for Pelvic Inflammatory Disease. He remained under the treatment of the doctor from 25.09.2013 to 15.02.2014. Copy of the Certificate of the doctor is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-6 at Page 44. e) When the complainant fully recovered from his illness he immediately rushed to this Hon’ble national Commission on 25.03.2014 for filing this revision petition, which has been drafted and is being filed today.” -5- It is well settled that the idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every legal remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone delay provided a “sufficient cause” is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. It is equally true that the term “sufficient cause” is to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but at the same time an unending period for limitation leads to unending uncertainty and consequently anarchy. (See– N.Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123. Therefore, the answer to the question whether or not a sufficient cause is made out would depend on the factual matrix of a given case. In the present case, the afore-extracted explanation furnished by the Petitioner for inordinate delay of 413 days in filing the Revision Petition does not make out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Even ignoring the period during which the Petitioner was pursuing his review applications before a wrong Forum, no explanation is forthcoming for the period from 10.07.2013, when his second application was dismissed, to 25.09.2013, when he claims to have suffered backache. Furthermore, -6- even the medical certificate placed on record does not inspire confidence as it does not indicate the nature of treatment/medication the Petitioner was undergoing during the period from 25.09.2013 to 15.02.2014. In view of the above, we decline to condone an inordinate delay of 413 days in filing the Revision Petition. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation. | 
