The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, he State Commission dated 23.10.2013 in first appeal No.824/2012 has preferred this revision petition. The impugned order is reproduced as under: - resent: Sh. Deepak Jaiswal, Counsel for the Appellant. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent. 1) The delay in filing the appeal was condoned vide order dated 16.1.2013 subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as cost which the appellant was required to pay within one month from the date of the order and order was very much passed in the presence of the counsel for the appellant. 2) It was clearly mentioned in the order that if the appellant fails to pay the cost of Rs.1000/- within one month the order of the condonation of delay shall automatically vacated and this appeal will stand dismissed. 3) The counsel for the appellant states that due to certain reasons he could not pay the cost of Rs. 1000/- to the counsel for the respondent neither could not deposit the same with the Commission. 4) Under these circumstances the appeal stands disposed of. 5) Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties free of cost as per law and thereafter file be consigned to the record room. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent complainant filed a consumer complaint No.1076/2009 in Consumer Forum-VI, New Delhi alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner regarding his credit card account. The consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum holding the petitioner to be deficient in service and exemplary damages of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) was imposed on the petitioner. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum filed an appeal in the State Commission. The appeal, however, was filed after the expiry of period of limitation. Thus, an application for condonation of delay was also moved. The State Commission vide its order dated 16.1.2013 allowed the application for condonation of delay, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as conditional cost which was required to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant within one month from the date of the order. The petitioner did not pay the conditional cost as directed. Therefore, vide impugned order dated 23.10.2013 the State Commission dismissed the appeal on account of non-payment of the conditional cost for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Learned Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the petitioner all through intended to comply with the order of the State Commission dated 16.1.2013. Actually the counsel for the petitioner misheard the order of the State Commission and he got the impression that as per the order the conditional cost for condonation of delay was required to be paid by the next date of hearing i.e. 5.7.2013. On 5.7.2013 the Presiding Officer of the State Commission was on leave. Therefore, the cost could not be paid. It is contended that on 23.10.2013 the petitioner Bank tried to pay the cost of Rs.1000/- to the respondent but respondent did not accept the cost and insisted that the appeal be dismissed on the ground of non-payment of conditional cost within one month. Despite of the willingness of the petitioner to pay the cost the State Commission dismissed the appeal vide impugned order which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of failure of the petitioner/appellant to pay the conditional cost of Rs.1000/- for condonation of delay. 6. We do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. It is undisputed that on 16.1.2013 the application for condonation of delay was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of order. Admittedly the conditional cost was not paid to the respondent till 23.10.2013. As per the petitioner the conditional cost could not be paid within the stipulated time because the counsel for the petitioner/appellant misheard the order dated 16.1.2013 and he failed to hear that the cost was to be paid within one month from the date of order. This plea of the petitioner is not sustainable for the reason that affidavit of the concerned counsel who represented the appellant on hearing dated 16.1.2013 has not been filed to substantiate that he misheard the order. Even if the explanation given by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken to be true then also the petitioner/appellant was supposed to pay the conditional cost to the respondent on the next date of hearing which admittedly was 5.7.2013. The cost was not paid even on 5.7.2013. The plea of the petitioner that the Presiding Officer of the State Commission was on leave on 5.7.2013 cannot be taken as a justification for failure of the petitioner to pay the conditional cost. Admittedly even on the hearing dated 23.10.2013 when the appeal was dismissed for non-payment of conditional cost, the cost was not paid to the respondent. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 23.10.2013 payment of cost was offered to the respondent but he declined. This plea of does not find support from the impugned order. Otherwise also, affidavit of Mr. Deepak Jaiswal, Advocate counsel for the appellant to support his fact has not been filed. Thus, the explanation given for non-payment of conditional cost for condonation of delay appears to be an afterthought. Under these circumstances, the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal for non-payment of conditional cost for condonation of delay cannot be faulted. 7. Otherwise also, on perusal of record, we find that consumer complaint was filed way back in 2009. It was decided by the District Forum on 18.7.2012. The appeal was filed after the expiry of period of limitation. The State Commission condoned the delay subject to payment of conditional cost of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of the order. The petitioner/admittedly has not paid the conditional cost. From this it can safely inferred that the petitioner Bank is using every trick to delay the fruits of order of the District Forum to the complainant. 8. In the matter of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) Honle Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal took note of the object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and emphasised on expeditious adjudication of the consumer dispute. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are reproduced thus: - t 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 9. The principle enunciated in the above judgment is equally applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case the conduct of the petitioner is dilatory. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission on account of failure of the petitioner to pay the conditional cost for condonation of delay in filing the appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. Thus, we do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. Revision petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to cost.