The challenge in this revision petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”) is to an order dated -2- 25.02.2013 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short, ‘‘State Commission’’) in Appeal No.2101 of 2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner bank for condonation of delay of more than one year in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal has also been dismissed as barred by time. Having heard Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the application seeking condonation of delay before the State Commission, I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition. The explanation furnished by the petitioner bank for delay in filing the appeal is that after receipt of a copy of the impugned order on 11.08.2011, the then Branch Manager of the petitioner bank immediately referred the matter to the higher authorities soliciting sanction/instructions for filing the appeal; in the meanwhile the then Branch Manager got transferred to some other branch and the matter came to the notice of the new Branch Manager on 30.05.2012, when the complainant approached the bank for implementation of the direction given by the District Forum vide order dated 04.08.2011; and thereafter on exchange of several letters, the higher -3- authorities granted sanction for filing the appeal by their letter dated 31.08.2012. Unhesitatingly, I am in agreement with the State Commission that the explanation furnished by the bank for inordinate delay of over one year in filing the appeal does not make out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It is manifest that the head office of the petitioner bank did not act with due diligence in processing the case on a reference by the Branch Manager. At their end, from 27.08.2011 to 30.05.2012 and then, from 30.05.2012 to 31.08.2012 there was absolutely no action on the file. Bearing in mind the spirit and object of the Act, as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – (2011) 14 SCC 578)”, I am of the opinion that the State Commission was fully justified in declining to condone an inordinate delay of over one year in filing the appeal. More so, when the complaint filed sometime in the year 2008 pertained only to an exemption from payment of balance amount of Rs.35,610.67ps. under the Loan Exemption Scheme, 2008-09. -4- I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting interference. Revision petition stands dismissed accordingly. | 
