Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 5.4.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 133 of 2005.  The appeal before the State Commission was filed after undue delay of 355 days in filing the appeal against an order dated 5.2.2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ambala thereby partly allowing the complaint of the complainant and giving following directions to the opposite party-petitioner:-

          “i) To pay Rs.4,11,442/- after deducting the costs of 56.85 quintal @29200 per M.Ton with interest @12% P.A. from 10.5.99 to its realization.

          ii) To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of harassment and mental tortour.

          iii)  To pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.”

Since the application for condonation of delay of 355 days was filed alongwith memorandum of appeal, the State Commission at the

threshold considered the said application and dismissed the same on the ground that it did not disclose any sufficient cause for condoning

-3-

such unusual delay.  Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the petitioner is based in Mumbai while the proceedings were taken in Ambala Forum.    Therefore, delay of about one year was occasioned in communication between the parties.  The State Commission has dealt with this aspect in greater detail and has declined to condone such unusual delay, which in our opinion, is inconsonance with the law as has been laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts in catena of decisions.

Even on merits, we find that the order passed by the District Consumer Forum was eminently justified and does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error which warrants any interference by this Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The revision petition is dismissed.