The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.06.2013 of the Karnataka State Commission in Appeal No. 153 of 2013 which was filed against the order dated 24.07.2012 of the District Forum Mysore passed in Complaint No. 1004 of 2010. The said appeal was filed by the petitioners with delay of 166 days. Along with an appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed.

2.         The State Commission after considering the arguments of the parties dismissed the said application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.  The State Commission had also commented on the merits of the case.  However, it held that delay could not be condoned since no reasonable ground for the delay had been made out by the appellants.

3.         This order has been impugned before this Commission.

4.         It is argued by counsel for the petitioners that delay has been duly explained.  It is submitted that it had occurred because before filing of the appeal, the file has to pass through various desks of the petitioners. It is submitted that reasons for the delay has been very well explained in the affidavit of Shivanand V Hooli dated 08.02.2013 which was filed before the State Commission alongwith application for condonation of delay.

5.         Counsel for the respondent has submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.         I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. It is admitted that there is delay of 166 days in filing the appeal against the impugned order of the District Forum.  The reason for condonation of delay are mentioned in the paragraph nos. 3 to 5 of the affidavit of Shivanand V Hooli, Sales Manager of the Petitioners, on which counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance.   For the sake of convenience, the said paragraphs are reproduced as under:

“3. I submit that, subsequent to the Order passed by the Hon’ble District Forum, as per the Company procedure the Branch Office at Mangalore has to send the order copy to Zonal Office at Bangalore.  The Zonal Office in Bangalore will send the order copy to Mumbai and also seeks permission for further action has to be taken before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore Mumbai Head Office has to send the Certified Order copy to Bangalore to further proceed with the matter.

4.  I submit that, the Finance and Accounts Branch in turn need to send the Demand Draft for deposit of the Statutory fee towards filing the appeal to the concerned branch which are all interlink and minimum time bound process as a corporate hierarchy.

5. I submit that, for the above said reasons Appellant was not able to file the Appeal in time according to Limitation Act, 1963 and to challenge the aggrieved order, and the reasons stated above for delay is valid and bonafide and not intentional. Hence this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to allow the accompanying application.”

7.         From the bare perusal of the reasons mentioned in these paragraphs, it transpires that no cogent reason has come forward for the condonation of delay.  The petitioner was needed to explain the delay of each and every day which they had failed to explain. Even the reasons given are very vague.  In the light of this, State Commission has rightly observed that application for condonation of delay had no merits and the reasons assigned were unsatisfactory. There is  no doubt that Court has to adopt a liberal attitude while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay.  However, the Courts cannot permit the condonation of delay in which the delay is not sufficiently explained.

8.         Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the party who is seeking condonation need to produce proof of a sufficient cause.  Since the condonation of delay is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court, if the sufficient cause is  not proved, nothing further is to be done.  Hon’ble Supreme court went to the extent that even if sufficient cause is shown, still the Courts can exercise its jurisdiction to dismiss the application for condonation of delay where it is of opinion that parties had not acted with due diligence and in a bonafide manner.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said matter  has observed as under:

“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.”

9.         The Supreme Court has held in the case of R B Ramlingam Vs. R B Bhavaneshwari I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) that Court has to apply the basic test while dealing with matters relating to condonation to delay.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said matter has held  as  under:

"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.”

10.       In “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,  the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with matters relating to condonation of delay in the consumer cases  had clearly held that if the Court adopts the approach of condoning the delay liberally, that would defeat the very purpose for which the Act  has been formulated. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said matter has held 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 Fora."

11.       In view of the above settled proposition of law, I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 166 days.  However, it is expected that once the condonation of delay was dismissed by the State Commission, there was no occasion for the State Commission to deal with the matter on merits.  The revision petition has no merit and same is dismissed with no order as to costs.