This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 31.03.2015, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 13.09.2013 came to be dismissed.   Since there is a delay of more than one year and four months (513 days) in filing the revision petition, an application being IA No.1164 of 2016 seeking condonation of the said delay has also been filed.  The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

“3.     It is submitted that the petitioners school after receiving the order passed by the State Commission forwarded the papers to school management.  Since this was serious issue and every chances that this issue will be recurring, decided to obtain legal opinion.  Thereafter the matter was placed with the opinion to the management.  The management sought for a second opinion with different counsel.

4.      The management decided to challenge the impugned order, since this issue will be recurring every year and the impugned order will be used against the petitioner.  Moreover the order passed by the State Commission is affecting the repute of the school and the school is gravely affected by the impugned order.”

2.      It would thus be seen that the abnormal delay of as much as 513 days in filing the revision petition is sought to be justified solely on the ground that the management of the school wanted to obtain legal opinion in the matter, considering the issues arising out of the order passed by the State Commission.  The application is however, silent as to (i) on which date, the copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner, (ii) on which date the legal opinion was sought, (iii) on which date the legal opinion was received and (iv) from which source, the legal opinion was obtained.  In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, a bald statement made in the application in this regard cannot be accepted. 

3.      One of the objectives behind the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide expeditious relief to the consumers who are aggrieved on account of a defect or deficiency in the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by them.  It is towards attaining this objective that the Act enjoins upon the Consumer Fora to make efforts to decide the complaint within a period of three months.  The statutory objective is bound to be defeated if such an abnormal delay in filing the revision petition, after having lost before the District Forum and the State Commission, is condoned without the said delay having been satisfactorily explained. 

4.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no justification for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition.  The application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is hereby dismissed.  Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.