These Revision Petitions have been filed with a delay of 217 days which is over and above the statutory period 90 days given for

-2-

filing the Revision Petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the consumer fora are required to decide the case in a summary manner within 90 days of its filing where no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where the evidence is required to be taken.  The inordinate delay of 217 cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.  Petitioner in the application seeking condonation of delay has given the following reason:

3.                                        That the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum observed and directed as under:

“Before we part with this Order, we notice that a number of cases on identical facts have been allowed and even approved by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana.  It has been time and again reiterated by the Courts of Law and even various State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (Ref.2007 CTJ 200) that if a relief is granted by a Court in favour of a person in one case, the authorities should grant the benefit to all similarly placed persons without expecting that every

-3-

person should knock the doors of the Court for similar relief.  Therefore we direct the Opposite Party No.1 to take action in all cases of identical nature in view of the aforesaid delineated legal observations and directions made/given above.

4.      That similarly circumstanced Complainants filed the Revision Petitions on the identical issue which this Hon’ble Commission.  Those Revision Petitions were pending for the out come of the decision of this Hon’ble Commission.  The petitioner waited on the expectation that if the relief is granted in those Revision Petitions the Opposite Parties would allow the similar relief to the Petitioenr and therefore it would not be advisable to go for unnecessary litigation.”

The only reason given is that in a Revision Petition, identical issue was pending before this Commission and the petitioner was waiting for the decision in the said Revision Petition and filed               the present Revision Petitions soon after the decision in the earlier case.  I am not satisfied with the cause shown.  The petitioner            cannot be allowed to take a chance and wait for the                         decision in some other case  and,    then,   file the Revision

-4-

Petitions because in the meantime, vested rights may set in favour of his opponent and may be in certain cases, third party rights are created. The delay of 217 days in filing the Revision Petitions cannot be condoned before the consumer fora where the cases have to be decided in time bound manner.  Applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed.  Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed as barred by limitation.