This revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission Punjab dated 01.09.2015 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner firm against the order of the District Forum. 2. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days as provided in Regulation 14 (i) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 with a delay of 64 days. The petitioner, therefore has filed an application for condonation of delay being IA No. 2979 of 2016. The explanation given by the petitioner for delay in filing of the revision petition is that petitioner could not approach his counsel as he was advised bed rest because of back pain problem. In support of his contention, petitioner has placed on record medical certificate purported to have been issued by Dr. Naginder Khera of Khera Clinic. Before adverting to contention of learned counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay, it would be useful to have a look on the facts of the case. 3. The respondent Gurminder Singh filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner Krishan Cold Storarge alleging that he had deposited 419 bags of potato seeds on different dates for being kept in cold storage of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not take good care of the potato seeds as a result of which seeds got rotten resulting in loss to the complainant. 4. The petitioner was served with the notice and he appeared before the District Forum on hearings dated 01.11.2013, 12.11.2013 and 20.11.2013. Despite of putting in appearance on the aforesaid three dates, the petitioner did not file any written statement contesting the allegations made in the complaint. Ultimately, when the petitioner failed to put in appearance on 09.12.2013, the District Forum was constrained to proceed ex parte against him. The District Forum after taking ex parte affidavit evidence of the complainant allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner opposite party as under: “In view of the above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted ex parte and the OP is directed to Rs.3,31,545/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,41,545/- from the date of order till realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.” 5. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission did not find merit in the appeal and dismissed the appeal. This has led to the filing of revision petition. 6. Coming to the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that delay in filing of the revision petition was unintentional. Actually Srabjit Singh, partner of the petitioner firm could not contact his lawyer and take initiative for filing of revision petition in time because he was suffering from acute back pain and was under the treatment of Dr. Naginder Khera, who had advised him bed rest from November 2015 to March 2016. In support of his contention, learned counsel has drawn our attention to copy of medical certificate issued by Dr. Naginder Khera. It is further contended that Sarabjit Singh was the only working partner of the petitioner firm. 7. We do not find merit in the explanation for delay given by the counsel for the petitioner, firstly, for the reason that admittedly the petitioner is a partnership firm. Even if Sarabjit Singh, partner was advised bed rest, the other partners could have taken initiative and filed revision petition in time. There is nothing on the record to show any cause which prevented other partners of the petitioner firm from filing the revision petition in time. Otherwise also, even the medical certificate is suspect. On perusal of the medical certificate, we find that it is undated. As regards the period of rest, the words used are “ take best rest 20th Nov to March”. The year has not been mentioned, which itself is clear indication that medical certificate which is not supported by any treatment record has been fabricated to create a justification for delay in filing of the revision petition. 8. The law relating to the condonation of delay is well settled. The petitioner seeking condonation of delay is required to explain each and every day of delay to the satisfaction of the Court / Tribunal concerned. We are conscious that while dealing with the application of condonation of delay, the Courts / Tribunals are expected to have a liberal approach but this does not mean that the petitioner seeking condonation of delay can get away with the gross negligence in pursuing the matter. 9. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed: “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant”. 10. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has 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. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) laid down 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”. .12, In the light of the above settled position in law as also the discussion above, we do not find any reason to condone the inordinate delay of 164 days in filing of revision petition. Application of condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. | 
