The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 17.01.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 88 of 2019, which was filed by the Petitioner against the Order dated 18.10.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-V (North West District), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (for short the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 1393 of 2011.  Along with that Appeal an Application for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal was also filed.  The said Application was dismissed by the State Commission and delay was not condoned.  Consequently, the Appeal was also dismissed.

It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was 68 days delay from the date of the Order of the District Forum and 7 days delay from the date the certified copy of the Order was obtained, which is 19.12.2018.

It is settled proposition of law that the party, who seeks condonation of delay, has to explain the delay of each and every day and that explanation has to be reasonable explanation.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the courts can exercise its discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown.  The Apex Court 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.”

It is also a settled preposition of law that if a person acts in lethargic manner and continues sitting over the file and takes long time for preparing the file or in getting translations done, or delay in collecting documents, such delay cannot be said to be sufficient and reasonable as the same are not the reasons which could not have been avoided.  The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”.  The Hon’ble 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.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also warned this Commission to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay.  In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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."

          There is no reasonable cause which was beyond its control and which had prevented the Appellant/Petitioner from coming to the Court.  In the present Case, the only reason given was that the Appellant/Petitioner, which is a Private Company and a big Company, having a battery of legal experts on its panel, could not contact the local Counsel, who was contesting the matter before the District Forum, and, therefore, was not aware of the Order of the District Forum and became aware of the same only when the certified copy of the Order was applied and received.  This certainly is not a sufficient explanation because a litigant is expected to be vigilant and prudent about its case and specially the one who have a battery of legal experts at their disposal.  It is also clear that no explanation what to say a reasonable explanation has been given by the Petitioner for the delay of 7 days after the certified copy was obtained and before the Appeal was filed.

          I found no illegality, perversity and infirmity in the Impugned Order.  The Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.