PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition challenges the order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 28.11.2013 in First Appeal No.1172 of 2012 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner insurance co. and upheld the order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- VI (New Delhi). The District Forum vide its aforesaid order has allowed the consumer complaint of the respondent/complainant. 2. We may note that aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the petitioner insurance co. had filed an appeal before the State Commission but since there was a delay of 61 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the appeal, the petitioner company had also filed an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission. A copy of that application filed by the petitioner before the State Commission is placed on record. On consideration of the reasons which caused the delay in filing the first appeal, the State Commission vide its impugned order held that the explanation for the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal was not satisfactory and hence it dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal being time-barred. 3. We have heard learned counsel Ms. Gurmeet Bindra, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel has contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner was inadvertent, unintentional, bonafide and beyond the control of the petitioner. She has submitted that the impugned order is erroneous in law as the State Commission has adopted a very harsh approach while dealing with the reasons given in the application of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to her, the State Commission gravely erred in not appreciating the fact that the petitioner is an institution and has to follow elaborate procedure before any decision is taken with respect to challenging a judicial order through an appeal/petition which cannot be filed in a mechanical manner and hence the State Commission ought to have adopted a pragmatic approach while dealing with the request for condonation of delay and should have condoned the same and decided the appeal on merits. Referring to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan [2008 (14) SCC 582], learned counsel pleaded that the State Commission should have adopted a liberal approach and not a pedantic approach while considering the explanation for delay in filing the appeal. She submitted that since in the present case, the State Commission has apparently failed to do so, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and the matter be remanded to the State Commission with a direction to adjudicate the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits. 4. The first and the foremost issue in this case for our consideration is as to whether the State Commission was not right in dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the appeal. Perusal of the order of District Forum clearly shows that the District Forum pronounced the order in open court on 18.9.2012. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. This being the case, the petitioner ought to have taken steps on priority to challenge the same at the earliest since the period prescribed for filing an appeal as per law is 30 days. Without offering any explanation as to what action was taken by the petitioner company after pronouncement of order on 18.9.2012, it is simply stated in para 13 of the application that the order of the District Forum was received at the reception desk of the petitioner Co. on 23.10.2012. Thereafter, it is stated in the application that vide email dated 9.11.2012, the petitioner requested the law firm Shailender Singh & Associates who had been dealing with the case before the District Forum to hand over the case file with certified copies of the documents to enable the petitioner co. to analyse the case and thereafter file the appeal accordingly. No explanation has been offered by the petitioner in its application as to why it took 17 days just to make a request to its law firm for handing over the papers when the total period available for filing the appeal is 30 days. Since there was delay on the part of the law firm to provide the documents to the petitioner co., rather than deputing some responsible person to get the necessary documents, the petitioner co. chose to wait for a further period of 21 days and then send a reminder vide email dated 30.11.2012. Thereafter, it is submitted in the application that on 5.12.2012, the newly appointed counsel procured copies of the documents along with other record and prepared the appeal which was eventually filed on 21.12.2012. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay establishes beyond any manner of doubt that the delay in question in filing the appeal was caused solely because of the reason that the petitioner rather than acting diligently dealt with the case in a rather routine and causal manner. The State Commission while dismissing the application of condonation of delay has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order :- he only reason given for the delay is on account of some departmental internal problems. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. The Law of limitation calls for explanation for each day delay after expiry of period of limitation, an explanation for delay has to be rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable. Delay in official procedure is no exception provided in the proviso given under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for limitation. 5. As rightly observed by the State Commission, the view taken by it is in line with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this Commission in a number of cases referred to by it in the impugned order. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Nothing has been put forth before us either in the revision petition or during the course of arguments by learned counsel which would persuade us to take a different view on the application of the petitioner co. for condonation of delay in filing its appeal. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order of the State Commission dismissing the application of condonation of delay which resulted in the dismissal of the main appeal as well. 6. Even on merits, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the District Forum. The only reason for rejection of the claim filed by the respondent/complainant by the petitioner insurance co. is the wrong mention of the date of birth of the life assured in the proposal form as 18.11.1954 instead of 18.11.1952. The District Forum after considering the evidence adduced by the parties before it, non-suited the defence of the petitioner co. and accepted the complaint of the respondent. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties in their pleadings but do not find any ground to modify the order of the District Forum. Keeping in view the undisputed fact that the deceased life assured was a well-educated senior executive, the conclusion drawn by the District Forum regarding the inadvertent omission in respect of the correct date of birth is fully justified and supported by the evidence. In the circumstances, even on merits, there is no case for our interference with the impugned order. 7. We are convinced that it was an inadvertent mistake which crept into the proposal form and no case could be established by the petitioner co. to hold that there was any element of cheating or misleading on the part of the deceased life assured. The District Forum, therefore, was right in concluding that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the insurance co. while rejecting the claim of the complainant. In the circumstances, we dismiss the revision petition but with no order as to costs.