Ms. Chandini Goel, Advocate has tendered her Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent, which is taken on record. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 13.7.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the first appeal No.523/2011 preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum, Kachchh in CC No.239/2008 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.23,500/- with 9% interest w.e.f. 16.10.2008 in respect of the insurance claim of the respondent/complainant besides cost of Rs.3,000/-. 3. The revision petition has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days as provided under Regulation 14 (1) (i) of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 with a delay of 104 days as per the report of Registry and 91 days as per the petitioner. The petitioner has moved an application being IA/504/2013 praying for condonation of delay in filing of the revision petition. 4. Learned Shri Mohan Babu Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of the revision petition is unintentional and if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injustice. Learned counsel has tried to explain day-to-day delay in filing of revision petition by contending that the impugned order was passed on 13.7.2012. An official was deputed by the petitioner Insurance Company to collect the file from the counsel and the certified copy in August, 2012. After the receipt of the relevant file matter was sent for legal opinion and it was received in 3rd week of October, 2012. Thereafter, file was sent to Delhi office in November, 2012 for obtaining necessary permission and on the receipt of the necessary permission to file revision petition, counsel was deputed. Then it was realized that relevant documents were in Vernacular and same were got translated in English and this also consumed sufficient time. It is contended that for the aforesaid reason the delay in filing of revision petition has occurred. 5. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by learned counsel for the petitioner. The explanation per-se reflects upon the snail pace at which the petitioner office approached this matter. Regulation 14 provides limitation of 90 days in filing of revision petition and undisputedly in this case more than 90 days were consumed in obtaining the legal opinion. Even thereafter the petitioner did not show any urgency and waited till 23.1.2013 to file the revision petition. The explanation for the said delay is that after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities sufficient time was consumed in getting the documents translated from Vernacular into English. We fail to appreciate why it took more than two months to get the documents translated. Therefore, under the circumstances, we find no justification in the explanation given for the delay. 6. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held: “24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under; “29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation /resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.” The Court further observed ; “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 29. 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 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. 30. 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. 31. In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. 32. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.” 7. Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has observed as under : “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. 8. In view of the above-stated position in law and facts, we find no merit in the application for condonation of delay. 9. Even on merits, the petitioner has no case. Both the foras below have returned the concurrent finding of fact. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show us any jurisdictional error or material irregularity which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 10. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. It is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed. No order as to cost. | 
