PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in First Appeal No. 18 of 2009 M/s. VRL Logistic Ltd. & Ors. Have filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  By the said order, the State Commission has dismissed the above numbered appeal for default by observing as under:

“DOCKET ORDER

          No representation for appellant.  As seen from the notes paper, which disclose that appellant was not present for the past two hearings, also not filed written arguments.  Today also the appellant is not present and there is no representation also, thereby showing the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case.  Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petition on file.  Hence the appeal is dismissed for default.”

2.      Along with the petition, the complainant has filed an application under Section 14 (2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 for condonation of delay of 351 days in filing the present Revision Petition.

3.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the application for condonation of delay.  He submits that after passing of the impugned order, the petitioner under some improper legal advice had filed a review petition before the State Commission for setting aside the order dated 07.03.2011, which review petition was dismissed on 24.11.2011 and therefore the actual delay in filing the present petition is of 89 days excluding the period of 90 days provided for filing the revision petition.  In view of the order dated 07.03.2011, we called upon the petitioner counsel to explain the circumstances as to why there were repeated defaults on the part of the petitioner in making representations on behalf of the appellant before the State Commission.  The only answer given was that it was due to default of the counsel for the petitioner.  We are not prepared to believe the same.  The petitioner is a Private limited company and therefore must have several staff members to pursue the matters pending in Courts.  The State Commission has recorded that despite opportunities granted to the petitioner, it has failed to avail the same and pursue the appeal.  It would show that there are persistent defaults / attitude of neglect from the side of the petitioner to prosecute the matter.  Even if we exclude the period taken in the review proceedings, assuming that the same was filed under some mis-advice, yet further delay of more than 200 days remains to be unexplained. 

4.      We do not find any sufficient cause entitling the petitioner for exercising the judicial discretion in favour of the petitioner.  The application for condonation of delay is accordingly declined and consequently the Revision Petition is dismissed.