(Oral) Vide the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.06.2019 in its Appeal No. 95 of 2019. The petitioner had filed the said appeal challenging the order dated 28.02.2019 of the District Forum in complaint no. 299 of 2017. 2. The appeal of the petitioner against the order of the District Forum was dismissed as being barred by limitation. The appeal was filed alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the said appeal. The State Commission did not find the reasons indicated in the application seeking condonation of delay justifiable and reasonable. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has a good case on merits and had offered reasonable grounds for condoning the delay, yet the delay was not condoned by the State Commission. It is further argued that State Commission be directed to decide the appeal in merit. 3. It is settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the party seeking condonation needs to explain the delay of each and every date by showing sufficient causes which prevented it to approach the Commission within stipulated period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held as under: “12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 4. In another case, “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24” Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the criteria to determine whether the reasons given by the party are sufficient for condonation of delay or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: "5. We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has again warned the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to keep in mind the special provisions of limitation provided under the Act while dealing with application for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” has held as under: “5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora." 6. It is, therefore, clear that petitioner was required to explain to the State Commission the sufficient reasons of such nature which prevented it and were beyond its control. The State Commission in its order has observed as under: 4. “It is true that Courts are not supposed to decline remedy to a litigant on the basis of bar of limitation, however, in cases where no explanation whatsoever is given, compassion cannot be shown to the said litigant. The appellant is a company of repute expected to have a legal team at its office. It was suppose to furnish explanation how delay has occurred, whether same is justified or not; who is responsible for the same and why it was not possible to file appeal in time. Receipt of certified copy of the order under challenge on 18.03.2019 is admitted. Thereafter, not a single word has been said as to why delay has not been caused in filing the appeal. In the affidavit to support the application for condonation of delay, nothing has also been said. Perusal of the documents on record indicates that the affidavit was got notarized on 3.5.2019. Further, the application appears to have been signed by the Counsel for judgment debtor on the same date. Why delay occurred thereafter, nothing has been explained. 7. Counsel has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings of the State Commission. The certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 18.03.2019 and the appeal was required to be filed by 17.04.2019 but it was filed only on 14.05.2019 and the application filed before the State Commission did not disclose any grounds / reasons which prevented the petitioner from filing the appeal within period of limitation i.e. 30 days. The State Commission has rightly observed that petitioner is a company having a legal team in its office and this fact is also not denied. Counsel has argued that petitioner has good case on merit. The petitioner, however, has filed to point out any merit in its case. He is the manufacturer of the vehicle whose engine seized within the warranty period and did not replace it free of cost and the complainant had to pay from his pocket which he has claimed in his complaint from the petitioner as well as respondent no.2. He has successfully proved its case by way of evidences before the District Forum. 8. In view of the above, I found no merit in the present revision petition. Revision Petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. | 
