JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 18-07-2014 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 9 months and 23 days in filing the appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 25-03-2009 was rejected and consequently the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the order of the District Forum dated 25-03-2009 was received by the Branch Manager of the petitioner company on 13-04-2009. The appeal before the State Commission came to be filed after about one year of the order as recorded in the impugned order. The delay in filing the appeal was sought to be explained by the petitioner on the ground that it had come to know of the impugned order of the District Forum only after receiving notice of Execution Case No.15 of 2009 and thereafter it applied for certified copy of the order which was impugned before the State Commission. The said certified copy of the order of the District Forum was received on 19-02-2010. It was sent to the Regional Office of the petitioner-company on the same date. The Regional Office forwarded the certified copy of the order to the Zonal Office of the petitioner-company on 23-02-2010. The Zonal Office, in turn, forwarded the certified copy to the Command Office on 25-02-2010. On 02-03-2010 the Command Office instructed the Zonal Office to file appeal and accordingly the file was handed over to the advocate on the same date and the appeal came to be filed on 08-03-2010. 3. A perusal of the impugned order would also show that notice of the complaint filed before the District Forum was received in the office of the petitioner-company by one of its employees on 14-11-2008. Despite that there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, before the District Forum, which resulted in the said forum passing an ex parte order dated 25-03-2009. 4. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find no such fault with the order of the State Commission as would warrant interference by us in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. Though the copy of the order of the District Forum dated 25-03-2009 had been received by the Branch Manager of the petitioner-company on 13-04-2009, the same fact was withheld while seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission and it was represented before the State Commission that the petitioner had come to know of the order of the District Forum only on receipt of the notice of the Execution Case No.15 of 2009. As noted earlier, even the notice of the complaint had been received in the office of the petitioner-company on 14-11-2008 but despite that there was no appearance. Considering that one of the primary objectives behind the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide speedy relief to the consumers in a time bound manner, the delay of 9 months and 23 days in filing the appeal cannot at all be said justified nor was it explained to the satisfaction of the State Commission. Considering the conduct of the petitioner in withholding from the State Commission, the fact that the copy of the order of the District Forum had been received by its Branch Manager on 13-04-2009, no indulgence to the petitioner company is warranted. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. | 
