PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (ORAL)

This revision petition challenges order dated 23.6.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (tate Commissionfor short) in first appeal No. A/11/428.

2. Briefly stated, the eleven complainants who are respondents 1 to 11 herein, filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, which is a tours & travels company, before the District Consumer Forum, Ernakulam. The District Forum vide its order dated 23.2.2011 partly allowed the complaint against the petitioner/OP No.1 in terms of the following directions: - . the 1st opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) each to the complainants. ii. The 1st opposite party shall also pay costs of Rs.1,000/- each to the complainants on accounts mentioned above. The abovesaid order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

3. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which vide its impugned order upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has now approached the National Commission challenging the order of the State Commission through the present revision petition.

4. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 50 days in filing this revision petition. We have perused the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of this delay and heard Mr. Raghenth Basant, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has made following submission in support of his prayer for condonation of delay:

"The impugned order was issued by the Honle Commission on 23.06.2012 which was received by the Petitioner on 26.07.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was advised by his counsel at Thiruvananthapuram that a Revision Petition could be filed before this Honle Commission. Initially, the Petitioner decided not to file a Revision Petition before this Honle Commission. However, thereafter the Petitioner came to know that the Respondents are spreading a rumour that the Petitioner has accepted the fact that there was deficiency in service and has accordingly accepted the judgment of the Honle State Commission. On realizing that such baseless rumours being spread would affect the credibility of the Petitioner Company in the eyes of the public, the Petitioner decided to file a Revision Petition before this Honle Commission. Thereafter, the Petitioner engaged an Advocate at New Delhi and sent all the papers to the said Advocate. Thereafter, the Advocate drafted the petition and the Vakalath and Affidavit were sent to the Advocate at Delhi. All this took some time and therefore, there has been a delay in filing the present Revision Petition. The delay is neither deliberate nor due to the negligence of the Petitioner."

5. The explanation given by the petitioner is not at all satisfactory and does not constitute sufficient cause to justify condonation of delay of 50 daysdelay in filing this revision petition. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay hence this revision petition is liable for dismissal on this ground alone.

6. As regards merits, we have seen the impugned orders. Both the Fora below have returned their concurrent finding in favour of the complainants/respondents while non-suiting the defence of the petitioner in respect of the alleged deficiency in service. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which would call for our interference with the impugned order under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition in limine with no order as to cost.