PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Counsel for the petitioner is present. There is a delay of 108 days in filing the present revision petition. The delay is explained in para nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 which are reproduced: “3. That the impugned judgment was pronounced by the Hon’ble State Commission on 04.01.2013 and the certified copy of the judgment was issued on 22.01.2013. Therefore, there is a delay of 130 days in filing the accompanied Revision Petition, which is bonafide and not intentional and is due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. 4. That the certified copy of the judgment dated 28.01.2013 along with the covering letter of the Advocate was sent to the Manager of the Petitioner Insurance Company. 5. That the papers forwarded to the regional office which was again forwarded to the head office after seeking legal opinion from the law officers of the company. 6. That the competent Authority took a decision to proceed with the filing of Revision Petition and to depute a lawyer for filing. The case was marked by letter dated 04.03.2013, the file -3- along with the documents was received on 04.03.2013 along with the original file. 8. That on 28.06.2013 revision petition was given for signature and the same was received for filing on 16.07.2013.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is not intentional delay. It took time in drafting as there was personal difficulty with the counsel. 3. We are of the considered view that this case is barred by time. The petitioner has failed to explain the day-to-day delay. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Section 15 of the C.P. Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. The petitioner has failed to prove his case to the satisfaction of this Commission. 4. In Anshul Aggarwal V. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also opposite 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 -4- 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”. 5. A similar view was taken in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC) in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 (arising out of SLP © Nos. 7595-96 of 2011)-decided on 24.02.2012, in R.B. Ramlingam V. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)-I (2009) SLT 701-2009 (2) Scale 108 and in Ram Lal and Others V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361. 6. It is thus clear that the case is barred by time. 7. Now we advert to the merits of this case. Both the foras below have decided the case against the petitioner. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner on merits of this case. This is a case of accident. The State Commission was pleased to hold: “… Moreover, as can be seen from the record available before us, the appellant / opponent insurance company failed to adduce any documentary evidence to establish that the insured died only due to pulmonary tuberculosis, especially when the cause of death was recorded as gangrene of scrotum with -5- pulmonary tuberculosis. District Forum has rightly observed that the accident due to slipping down occurred and insured was hospitalized for treatment for the injury sustained to the private part of the deceased. The hospitalization continued and operation was carried out. However, the insured expired on 22.10.2006 i.e. during the course of treatment. District Forum further has rightly relied on the case law – 2009 CTJ 1145 (CP) (NCDRC) – (Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Hiralal) where the National Commission has observed that “An accident can be either a sudden happening or a slowly evolving process like percolation of harmful substances affecting human body.” In the instant case on hand, the death occurred almost after a week from the date of accidental slipping down leading to hospitalization immediately and operation.” 8. We find no flaw in it. Both the foras have decided that this is a case of accident. No question of law arises. -6- The revision petition is therefore dismissed on both counts. | 
