1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., which, along with its functionaries, had been arrayed as Opposite Parties No.1 to 8 in the Complaint, against the order dated 14.10.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) in Misc. Application No. MA/15/205 in/and Appeal No. A/15/477.  In view of non-compliance with the order dated 26.08.2015, whereby the delay in filing of Appeal by the Petitioner was condoned, subject to its paying a sum of ₹5000/- to the Complainant, the Respondent herein, the State Commission has held that the Appeal did not survive for consideration.

2.       The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioner, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 16.01.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Navi Mumbai (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 158/2011. By the said order, the District Forum, while holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, had allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹94,000/- with interest @ 6% from 01.06.2011 till the date of payment, towards the expenses incurred by him for purchase of fresh tickets and international calls made to their office.    

3.       On 07.04.2011, the Complainant had purchased six online tickets from the Petitioner for to and fro to Hongkong.  Though the Petitioner had issued confirmed tickets for the said tour, but when the Complainant along with other passengers travelled to Hongkong and was returning back from Shanghai, they were denied boarding on the ground that the tickets were not booked.  In such a situation, the Complainant was forced to buy fresh tickets at exorbitant price of ₹91,000/- and had to make several international phone calls to the Petitioner.  In the said background, a Complaint came to be filed in the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had, inter alia, prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to refund/pay to him a sum of ₹90,833.61 towards purchase of tickets and further sum of ₹4,000/- towards the phone calls, besides ₹10,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony, harassment and torture etc. and ₹50,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.       It is pointed out by the Office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 137 days in filing the same.  An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 2 – 4 of the said Application, the Petitioner has furnished the following explanation:  

“2.     That the impugned order is passed by Hon’ble State Commission on 14.10.2015 and the certified copy thereof was issued by Hon’ble State Commission on 16/10/15 which was received to Applicant at its registered office on 23/10/15.

3.       That in the meantime the advocate representing Applicant had escalated a complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court seeking indulgence on the unwarranted behavior of State Commission in circumstances whereby the impugned order was pronounced.  The response form the public grievance cell of Hon’ble Bombay High Court to this effect was received to Appellant on 10.12.2015 whereby Applicant was told to approach to the appropriate forum (This Hon’ble Commission) by filing appropriate proceedings.  As such, thereafter, Applicant sought advice from its in-house legal department so as to challenge the impugned order before this Hon’ble Commission which was approved and accordingly an advocate (as the present one through whom the accompanying Revision Petition is being filed) was engaged.  This entire process took considerable long time which ultimately resulted in delay in filing the accompanying Petition.  This may be appreciated by this Hon’ble Commission that as soon as all such relevant documents were traced and appropriate advice was received, the present petition was drafted, vetted and is being filed with immediate effect.

4.       If we shall compute the period of limitation from the date on which the copy of reply from the office of Grievance Cell of the Bombay High Court was received to Applicant’s advocate on 10.12.2015, the period of limitation post expiry of 90 days shall commence from 10.03.2016 and as such there has been a total delay of 85 days.”   

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay. 

6.       To say the least, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory.  At the outset, we may note that there is a delay of 137 days in filing of the present Revision Petition and not of 85 days, as stated in the Application seeking condonation of delay.  Instead of approaching this humble Commission directly, as mandated under the Act, against the impugned order of the State Commission, dismissing its Appeal, the Petitioner chose to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Petitioner was bonafidely pursuing its case before the High Court, the fact remains that, admittedly, the order passed by the High Court was received by the Petitioner on 10.12.2015 and going by the said date also there is a delay of 85 days in filing the Revision Petition, beyond the statutory period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.  There is absolutely no explanation for the said delay.  In any case, the Petitioner, a body Corporate, which claims to be most efficient tour operator, is not expected to sleep over a matter, involving its own interests.  An indifferent attitude and carelessness on the part of the Petitioner towards the case, gets compounded by the fact that even before the State Commission, its Appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-emptory order made by the State Commission. 

7.       In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the explanation furnished by the Petitioner for the delay is absolutely unsatisfactory.  Bearing in mind the authoritative observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 137 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.  We are convinced that condonation of such unexplained delay would cause further harassment to the Complainant, who, despite having got his foreign trip planned from the Petitioner, had to suffer all the unwarranted humiliation.  

8.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.