DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. None is present for the respondent – complainant. 2. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Order dated 16.01.2017 passed in first appeal No. 1259 of 2013 by Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the Order dated 11.04.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panch Mahal (for short, ‘the District Forum’). 3. Vide Order dated 11.04.2012, the District Forum allowed the complaint with the following directions: “1. Complaint of the complainant is granted. 2. The opponent no. 2 to pay amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant towards assistance entitled to him under Shramik Suraksha Scheme on death of his wife, along with 9% interest for a period from the date of complaint till payment is made. 3. It would be just in the interest of justice if opponent no. 2 pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards mental physical harassment to him. 4. The opponent no. 2 to pay to the complaint Rs.500/- towards cost of application. 5. This order be executed within 60 days.” 4. Aggrieved by the Order dated 11.04.2012 of the District Forum, the opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission. Vide Order dated 16.01.2017, the State Commission dismissed the appeal with the following directions: “- - - ii). The order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panch Mahals in complaint No. 1 of 2010 (Dahod) dated 11-4-2012 is hereby confirmed. iii) The amount deposited by the opponent in the Commission is ordered to be paid to the opponents with interest accrued thereon by Account Payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the opponents after proper verification and obtaining proper receipt. - - -” 5. There is delay of 153 days in filing the instant revision petition before this Commission. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. The stated reasons for delay in filing the revision petition, as mentioned in paras 3 and 4 of the application, are as below: “3. The accompanying Revision Petition could not be filed within the period specified under the rules due to unavoidable circumstances and the reasons for the delay are explained as under: 16.1.2017 The impugned judgment and order was delivered by the Hon’ble State Commission on 16.1.2017 28.2.2017 The Certified copy of the impugned order was received by the office of the Gujarat Rural Welfare Board, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar. 12.4.2017 The Gujarat Rural Welfare Board, Gandhinagar sent the proposal for filing the revision petition before National Commission to the Labour & Employment Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. 5.5.2017 The Labour & Employment Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar sent the proposal to the Legal Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. 14.6.2017 The Legal Department vide letter dated 14.6.2017 gave approval for filing revision petition before the National Commission. A copy of the said letter was sent to the Office of Advocate-on-Record which was received by her office on 20.07.2017. 20.7.2017 A letter was written by the office of the Government Advocate at New Delhi calling for translated copies of the relevant documents and requested to depute officer concerned for briefing in the matter. 24.7.2017 The Gujarat Rural Welfare Board, Gandhinagar took time to15.8.2017 in getting the documents translated into English from the vernacular language. 2.9.2017 The Labour & Employment Department Director of Insurance, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar instruct the Gujarat Rural Welfare Board, Gandhinagar for filing affidavit at New Delhi. 21.9.2017 The officer attended the office of the Advocate-on-Record and assisted in preparing the draft. 25.9.2017 After completing all other formalities, the matter was made ready for filing on 25.9.2017. 4. The aforesaid Revision Petition is filed with a delay of __ days, which have not been caused deliberately but on account of various steps required to be taken by the Board at different level before taking a decision for filing petition before this Hon’ble Commission. 6. We note that the stated reasons for delay like “- - - The impugned judgment and order was delivered by the Hon’ble State Commission on 16.1.2017”; “The Certified copy of the impugned order was received by the office of the Gujarat Rural Welfare Board, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar on 28.2.2017”; “The Gujarat Rural Welfare Board, Gandhinagar sent the proposal for filing the revision petition before National Commission to the Labour & Employment Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar on 12.4.2017”; “The Labour & Employment Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar sent the proposal to the Legal Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar on 5.5.2017”; “The Legal Department vide letter dated 14.6.2017 gave approval for filing revision petition before the National Commission on 14.06.2017. A copy of the said letter was sent to the Office of Advocate-on-Record which was received by her office on 20.07.2017”; “A letter was written by the office of the Government Advocate at New Delhi calling for translated copies of the relevant documents and requested to depute officer concerned for briefing in the matter”; “The Gujarat Rural Welfare Board, Gandhinagar took time in getting the documents translated into English from the vernacular language from 24.7.2017 to 15.08.2017”; “The Labour & Employment Department Director of Insurance, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar instruct the Gujarat Rural Welfare Board, Gandhinagar for filing affidavit at New Delhi on 2.9.2017”; “The officer attended the office of the Advocate-on-Record and assisted in preparing the draft on 21.9.2017”; “After completing all other formalities, the matter was made ready for filing on 25.9.2017”; “The aforesaid Revision Petition is filed with a delay of __ days, which have not been caused deliberately but on account of various steps required to be taken by the Board at different level before taking a decision for filing petition before this Hon’ble Commission”; etc. are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the revision petition. 7. No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible. 8. We however want to also satisfy ourselves that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. We find that the State Commission had concurred with the District Forum. The District Forum had ordered the OP No. 2 to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant towards assistance entitled to him under Shramik Suraksha Scheme on death of his wife with 9% interest; Rs. 3000/- as compensation; and Rs. 500/- towards cost of application. Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on merit, we but do not find any reason visible to convince us that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. 9. The application for condonation of delay being unconvincing and devoid of merit is dismissed. Resultantly the revision petition is dismissed on limitation. 10. Needless to add that the District Forum shall proceed with execution as per the law. | 
