DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. This revision petition has been filed after a delay of 1734 days. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have perused the record. 2. The complaint filed by the complainants – Pintu Kumar Rai and Jawahar Lal Rai against the OP – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. was dismissed by the District Forum, Saran. 3. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed first appeal No. 165 of 2010 before State Commission, Bihar. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in default by the following order: “15.07.2010. Nobody appears for the appellant. No petition to condone the delay has been filed. The appellant was also absent on the last date when it was adjourned by way of last chance. In the result the appeal stands dismissed for default. Let this order be communicated to the learned counsel and parties concerned immediately for needful.” 4. The State Commission dismissed an application for restoration on 15.01.2015 by the following order: “15.01.15. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application is for restoration of Appeal no. 165 of 2010 which was dismissed for non-prosecution by the order dated 15.07.10. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware with respect to the dismissal of the appeal and as such the restoration petition could not be filed earlier. Not withstanding the submission learned counsel is not in a positon to dispute that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to recall, modify, review or restore its own order or dismissing the appeal. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another reported in 2011 (9) SCC 541. In view of the above, this restoration petition is dismissed.” 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this revision petition on 13th July 2015. 6. We have perused the application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the application, which are reproduced below: “5. That it is submitted that the petitioners are very poor person and living in remote area of Saran District. After engaging lawyer for filing appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission they completely relied on him. Petitioners were enquiring time to time from their lawyer about the status of their case where they were informed that the same is still pending. But when the Petitioner No. 2 visited his lawyer at Patna in 2014 and visited the Hon’ble State Commission he came to know that his case was already dismissed in default in absence of lawyer on 15.07.2010. 6. That as soon as the Complainant came to know about the order of his case he immediately engaged another lawyer and filed Restoration Application bearing Appeal No. 32/2014, but unfortunately the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2015 being not maintainable and the said order was prepared vide memo no. 307 dated 23.03.2015 and handed over to the Petitioners. The revision was thus due to be filed on 20.06.2015 as reckoned from the date of receipt of the order. But the learned Counsel for the appellant advised the Petitioners to rush to Delhi for filing the revision before this Hon’ble Commission in 1st week of July as the this Hon’ble Commission remained closed from 01.06.2015 to 28.06.2015. 7. That under the said impression the Petitioner rushed to this Hon’ble Commission to file revision on 01.07.2015, where he came in contact with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Varma, Advocate who advised him to bring complete pleadings filed before the learned Forum, certified copy of the entire ordersheet etc. which was required to be filed alongwith the revision petition. 8. That the Petitioner again visited this Hon’ble Commission on 10.07.2015 with documents but he did not get the entire ordersheet from the Hon’ble State Commission. However, this revision petition was prepared and is being filed today on 13.07.2015 with photocopy of the impugned order for restoration of the Appeal No. 165 of 2010, after delay of about 26 days from the date of receipt of order passed in restoration application bearing Appeal No. 32/2014.” 7. The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to
consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The period of limitation to file revision petition is 90 days (Regulation 14(1)(i) of the Regulations 2005). This revision petition has been filed with (further) delay of 1734 days. 8. It is noted that the stated reasons for delay do not explain satisfactorily the day-to-day delay in filing the revision petition. No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible. 9. This bench however wants to also satisfy itself that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the Orders of the State Commission or the District Forum on merit, this bench does not find any reason visible that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. 10. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any justification for condonation of the huge delay of 1734 days in filing the instant revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed as time barred. There shall be no order as to costs. PER MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER 11. The case relates to repudiation of an insurance claim by the insurance company. The District Forum vide its Order dated 15.02.2010 had dismissed the complaint after appraising the case on merit (“- - - In the circumstances as discussed above this Forum is of the view that petitioner Jawaharlal Rai is not acting in good faith and he is not a consumer and is not entitled to contest this petition. With these discussions and observations this petition is dismissed”). The State Commission vide its Order dated 15.07.2010 had dismissed the appeal in default (“- - - No petition to condone the delay has been filed. The appellant was also absent on the last date when it was adjourned by way of last chance. In the result the appeal stands dismissed for default”). After dismissal of the appeal in 2010 for want of prosecution, an application for restoration was filed in 2014. The same was dismissed by the State Commission vide its Order dated 15.01.2015 (“- - - Not withstanding the submission learned counsel is not in a positon to dispute that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to recall, modify, review or restore its own order or dismissing the appeal”). The instant revision petition before this Commission has been filed with delay of 1734 days. The stated reasons for delay, as enunciated in the application for condonation of delay, and as reproduced in para 6 above, are illogical and absurd to explain convincingly and cogently the delay of 1734 days in filing the revision. Sufficient cause for condoning the delay is not discernible. And this bench also finds no reason to convince it that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. Considering the facts and specificities of the case, the (well evident) perfunctory and casual attitude towards the law of limitation can not be furthered. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed on limitation. | 
