REVISION  PETITION  NO.           4119         OF         2009

(From the order dated 18.3.09 in Appeal No.672/08 of the State Commission, Chhattisgarh)

Rajya Beej Nigam                                               …      Petitioner

Versus

Mehtaru & Ors.                                                    …      Respondents

REVISION  PETITION  NO.           4120         OF         2009

(From the order dated 18.3.09 in Appeal No.673/08 of the State Commission, Chhattisgarh)

Rajya Beej Nigam                                               …      Petitioner

Versus

Tekram & Ors.                                                    …      Respondents

REVISION  PETITION  NO.           4121         OF         2009

(From the order dated 18.3.09 in Appeal No.674/08 of the State Commission, Chhattisgarh)

Rajya Beej Nigam                                               …      Petitioner

Versus

Lochan Patel & Ors.                                           …      Respondents

O R D E R

          This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 137 days, which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the Revision Petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the cases within 90 days of its filing in which no evidence is to be taken and 150 days in which evidence has to be taken.  The delay of 137 days, which is 1½ times of the statutory period given for filing the Revision Petition, cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown.  The only reason given for the delay in filing of the Revision Petition is :

“That the appellant being a government body had a bounden duty to state true and correct facts before this Hon’ble Commission.  The appellant Ld.State Consumer Commission had passed the order on 18.03.09.  Thereafter the order was duly considered by the Department and on examination it was decided that appeal will be filed.  Thereafter the counsel was engaged and the paper was supplied.  There were a large number of documents which were required to be translated, which took time, as a result of which there was a delay in finalizing the appeal.”

We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Even the second sowing season has begun now.  The right has accrued on the respondent.  Dismissed on the ground of delay.