This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi (for short “the Petitioner”), against order dated 17.02.2014, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.881 of 2012.  By the impugned order, the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against order dated 09.01.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.1545 of 2009, has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.  The District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Respondent/Complainant a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for the loss of her luggage while travelling and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

          Since the Appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, an application seeking condonation of delay of 200 days was filed along with the Appeal.  The State Commission has held that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay and has, accordingly, dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation.  Hence, the present Revision Petition.

          Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the State Commission has erred in not appreciating the fact that the reasons, due to which the delay of 200 days was caused in filing the Appeal, were beyond the control of the Petitioner and the same being a “sufficient cause”, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO [(2005) 3 SCC 752] the State Commission ought to have adopted a pragmatic approach and condoned the delay.  It is pleaded that the Railways should not be made to suffer for the lapse of the Counsel.

          For a decision in the present Revision Petition, it is necessary to advert to the explanation furnished by the Petitioner before the State Commission for condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the Appeal.  The Petitioner had explained the delay in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the application, which read as under:

“2.      That in the month of August, 2012 during the internal meeting of the Railway Administration, it was revealed that no progress in the abovesaid case before Consumer Forum is available after filing of written statement and in the circumstances the then counsel Ms. Meenu Pandey was tried for conduct but she could not be contacted and in the circumstances the responsibility to trace the case was given to the present counsel in last week of August, 2012.

3.       That the present counsel inspected the case file and surprisingly found that from 30.08.2011, there is no representation on behalf of Railway administration.  Not only this even the most important step of proceeding i.e. filing of evidence was also not done.

4.       That the present counsel applied for certified copy of the impugned order and received the same in the first week of September.

5.       That though there is no delay in filing of the present appeal from the date of knowledge but if calculated in strict sense there is delay of 200 days.

6.       That the delay in preferring the present appeal is because of the abovesaid reason which was neither intentional nor wilful.”

          We are in agreement with the State Commission that the explanation furnished by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the Appeal was wholly unsatisfactory.  We find from the record that the complaint before the District Forum had been filed on 24.09.2009.  Upon notice, written statement was filed by the Petitioner sometime in the year 2011.  On 30.08.2011, as there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner, the District Forum had ordered for proceeding ex-parte against it.  On 09.01.2012 the District Forum passed the final order.  Thereafter, for over seven months the Petitioner slept over the matter and did not make any effort to ascertain about its fate, for which there is no explanation.  The Petitioner was only dependent on its empanelled Counsel.  If no feedback was forthcoming from the Counsel, the Petitioner could have made necessary enquiries from the locally situated District Forum.  We are of the view that the Petitioner had been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting its cause.  The explanation furnished by it also lacked bonafides.

          Bearing in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578], to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained, we are of the opinion that the State Commission was justified in declining to condone the aforesaid inordinate delay in filing the Appeal.

          We do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in our revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.