PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The petitioner being aggrieved of the concurrent finding of the Foras below has preferred this revision petition. The State Commission while concurring with the finding of fact recorded by the District Forum had directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- besides compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.       The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of 90 days as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 1987. The petition has thus filed an application for condonation of delay.

3.       The explanation for the delay caused in filing of revision petition is in para No.3 of the application which is reproduced as under: -

“The petitioner submits that it is necessary to mention here that as the proceeding before Ld. District Forum, Nashik was in vernacular Marathi language and the same was required to be translated into English. The petitioner obtained translation of the said documents i.e. copy of complaint, written statement, written arguments, report of District Seeds Grievance Committee, Panchanama of District Seeds Grievance Committee and copy of the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Nasik in the said consumer complaint. As a result the time was spent in getting the said translation and thereafter the present revision is filed. In the said process sometime was consumed which is bona fide and it was beyond the control of the petitioner. Therefore, there is delay of ____ days in filing the revision petition before this Hon’ble Court.”

4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay caused in filing of the revision petition is unintentional and it has occurred because of the time consumed in getting the relevant documents translated from Vernacular into English. It is contended that the petitioner otherwise has a very good case on merits and if the delay is not condoned, he shall suffer undue loss and injustice.

 5.      We are not satisfied with the explanation given for the delay in filing of the revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is vague. It does not specify on which date the documents in Vernacular were given to the translator for preparing copies in English and when the translated copies were delivered to the petitioner. Otherwise also, it is beyond comprehension that translation of few documents from Vernacular to English would take more than 90 days. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the explanation for delay. It is pertinent to mention that even the application for condonation of delay has been drafted in a casual manner and the exact period of delay is not quantified. For that blank spaced have been left. This means that the petitioner was not even aware of the exact amount of delay when the application for condonation of delay was drafted.

6.         The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled.  In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“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”.

7.         In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows:

 “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.

8.           Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed as under:

 “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 foras.”

9.       In view of the above-noted settled position in law and the discussion above, we do not find merit in the application for condonation of delay. Application is dismissed.

10.     As we have declined to condone the delay, the revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.