This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., against order dated 02.12.2013, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.688 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the State Commission, while holding that the appellants, petitioners herein, have failed to establish their case for condonation of delay of 103 days, has dismissed their appeal, filed against order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short “the District Forum”).  The District Forum had allowed the complaint preferred by the complainant, respondent herein, and directed the petitioners to pay him a sum of Rs.1,79,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization, besides costs of litigation, quantified at Rs.2200/-, within 30 days.

          It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 138 days in filing the same.  Application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed alongwith the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said application, the explanation furnished for the delay is as under:

“2.      That the registry of the Hon’ble State Commission dispatched the order dated 2.12.2013 on 23.12.2013 which was never received by the petitioner in its office, as the branch offices at Panipat and Karnal were closed and address of the Chandigarh office was given before the Hon’ble State Commission but the free copy of the order not received by the petitioner company.

3.       That the petitioner was bonafide and made regular follow-ups with its counsel before the Hon’ble State Commission through E-mails, and the counsel stated that copy of the order will be received through post at the address of the petitioner company but the copy of the order never received at the address of the petitioner therefore the counsel applied for the certified copy of the order on 5.06.2014 and copy of the order was received by the petitioner

insurance company on 13.06.2014 and decided to file appeal against the order of the Hon’ble State Commission and send the papers to the counsel before this Hon’ble Commission but the relevant documents of this case were not readily available with the petitioner therefore the documents collected from the counsel before Hon’ble State Commission which were received by the petitioner on 15.07.2014 therefore some delay occurred in filing the present petition.  A true copy of E-mail conversation is attached herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-1.

4.       That the delay caused was neither intentional nor deliberate rather bonafide, due to the above said reasons.  The petitioner has good prima facie case on merit and has every hope to succeed, and the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner.  Further submit that if this Hon’ble Commission does not condone the delay in filing the present revision petition then the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

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

          In our view, the explanation furnished by the petitioners is wholly unsatisfactory.  It is manifest that the State Commission had passed the order in presence of counsel for the petitioners.  If it was not received by them in the normal course, there is no reason of their sleeping over the matter.  Had they been diligent, they could have obtained a copy of the order immediately on its pronouncement.  There is no explanation why the petitioners took six months in receiving a copy of the impugned order from the State Commission, which they intended to challenge before this Commission.  The explanation is conspicuously silent about the dates when the petitioners made enquiries from the State Commission about the impugned order.  The petitioners besides taking one month in preparing the documents required for filing the present Revision Petition, after receipt of copy of the impugned order from the State Commission, also took further one month in filing the present Revision Petition, which was ultimately filed before this Commission on 08.08.2014.     

          We also find that same was the approach of the petitioners before the State Commission when they sought to challenge order of the District Forum before it.  The appeal too before the State Commission had been filed with a delay of 103 days, which, for the reasons rightly discussed by the State Commission, has not been condoned.

          In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the petitioners have been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting their cause.  The explanation furnished by them lacks bonafides as well.  

          Bearing in mind the 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 103 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.  Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.