Pronounced on 21st April, 2016
ORDER PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 3.3.2015 passed by State Commission in FA No. 372/2014- Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; by which appeal was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that complainant’s/petitioner’s Swaraj Mazda Tipper, insured with opposite party/ respondent met with an accident. On intimation, opposite party deputed surveyor and assessed loss and offered 75% of the assessed loss. Complainant refused to accept and alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that as there was an unauthorized person in the vehicle at the time of accident, opposite party rightly offered 75% on non-standard basis and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay remaining amount of Rs. 55,095/- with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs. 25,000/- as damages and litigation expenses. Both the parties preferred appeals and Learned State Commission vide impugned order, dismissed both the appeals against which this revision petition has been filed by petitioner alongwith application for condonation of delay. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as modification application filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 4.1.2016, delay of 364 days in filing revision petition will be condoned. As per office report, there is delay of 279 days in filing revision petition but as per application there is delay of 364 days in filing revision petition. Application for condonation of delay runs as under:- “4. That on 10.6.2015 the applicant/ petitioner filed an Execution Petition No. EA/15/17 against the Final Order dated 19.9.2014 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla which was withdrawn by the applicant/ petitioner on 4.1.2016. That it is specifically mentioned here that the non-applicants/ respondents had only deposited a sum of Rs. 98,308/- against the claim of the applicant petitioner of Rs. 2,59,840/-. That it was the specific defence of the non-applicants/ respondents that the amount of Rupees 1,58,784/- was not awarded by the District Forum, Shimla vide its order dated 19.9.2014 and they were liable only to deposit a sum of Rupees 55,095/- @ 9% interest per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 21.3.2011. 5. That on 16.12.2015 the applicant/ petitioner had filed Modification Application No. 5/2016 before the District Forum, Shimla for the modification of the order dated 19.9.2014 in complaint No. 91/2011 pertaining to an award of Rupees 1,58,784/- which application was also dismissed as withdrawn by the applicant/ petitioner on 4.1.2016, as the same was not maintainable before the Hon’ble District Forum, Shimla. 6. That the District Courts in Shimla closed for the winter vacations w.e.f. 18.1.2016 to 14.2.2016 and re-opened on 15.2.2016. 7. That calculating the limitation period from 14.3.2015 to 11.3.2016 there is a delay of 364 days (dated 12.3.2016 and 13.3.2016 being holidays) for filing the revision petition on 14.3.2016.” Perusal of aforesaid application reveals that in the execution application, full amount was deposited by opposite party and complainant moved application for modification which was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.1.2016, on this count, he wants condonation of delay. We do not find any reasonable explanation for condonation of delay of 279 days merely on the ground that in execution application, opposite party has raised certain objections. Complainant is free to proceed with this execution application for compliance of order of District Forum. After dismissal of appeal by impugned order when complainant was satisfied with order and moved execution application, merely on the basis of defenses raised in the application, delay in filing revision petition cannot be condoned in the light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459-Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563-Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.; and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC)-Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. (4) 2009 (2) Scale 108- R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari; and (5) AIR 1962 SC 361-Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and, in turn, revision petition is also liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage as barred by limitation. .……………………………. ( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J. ) PRESIDING MEMBER -sd/- .……………………………. ( PREM NARAIN ) MEMBER | 
