1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), M/s GGS Fast Food & Banquet, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 02.02.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.599 of 2010.  By the impugned order, while accepting the Appeal, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant for enhancement of compensation, the State Commission has directed the Petitioner herein to refund to the Complainant a sum of ₹1,75,000/-, charged from him, besides ₹1,00,000/- as compensation and ₹10,000/- as litigation costs, within one month, failing which the payment was to be made with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order.

2.       The Appeal before the State Commission had been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 05.07.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in his Complaint Case No.241 of 2009.  By the said order, while holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to him ₹10,000/- as compensation for the physical/mental harassment and financial loss, if any, along with ₹2,000/- as litigation costs.

3.       The Complainant had booked the premises of the Petitioner for engagement of his son, coupled with the birthday party of her daughter in law, by paying a sum of ₹25,000/- as advance money.  Subsequently, a total sum of ₹1,50,000/- had also been paid by the Complainant before commencement of the party.  Inter alia, alleging that though the function was to start at 11.00 a.m. but no proper arrangements were made till 2.00 p.m.; despite receiving payment as against supply of eight types of fruits, which included five types of imported fruits, only four types of Indian fruits were supplied by the Petitioner; instead of ten stalls and 25 + 5 waiters, only five stalls and 10 waiters were provided; decoration with imported and Indian flowers was not done; and not only the food was not prepared in pure ghee, as agreed, stale food was also served to the guests, etc., and, thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner on the afore-noted counts, the Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum.  The Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to refund to him the amount of ₹1,75,000/-, charged from him, with compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

4.       Upon notice, the Petitioner contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version.     

5.       On appreciation of the material available before it, the District Forum, as noted above, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and, consequently, partly allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-noted directions to the Petitioner.  The Petitioner accepted the said order.  However, not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum, the Complainant carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission. 

6.       The Petitioner did not turn up before the State Commission to contest the Appeal and, in such a situation, on re-appreciation of the material available on record, the State Commission, as noted above, allowed the Appeal and directed the Petitioner to refund to the Complainant a sum of ₹1,75,000/-, charged from him, along with ₹1,00,000/- towards compensation and ₹10,000/- as litigation costs within one month, failing which the default clause of paying interest @ 12% p.a. was to be given effect to. 

7.       Hence, the present Revision Petition.     

8.       It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 253 days in filing the same.  An Application, praying for condonation of the delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraph – 2 thereof, the Petitioner has furnished the following short and crisp explanation:

“2.     That the accompanying Revision Petition is being filed on 23.01.2017 and that there is a delay 50 days which have occurred as the Appeal No. 599/2010 proceeded exparte and the Petitioner was not aware of the proceedings or the final order dated 2.2.2016.  The Complainant filed for execution of the order dated 2.2.2016 before the District Consumer Forum East Delhi at Saini Enclave being Execution No. 46/2016.  The Revision Petitioner received notice of the execution on 05.09.2016 after which the Revision Petitioner sought legal advice and thereafter applied for a certified copy of the order dated 2.2.2016 and inspection of file of appeal No. 599/2010.  The limitation of 90 days from 05.09.2016 therefore expired on 04.12.2016.  The Petition is being filed on 23.01.2017 and as such there is a delay of 50 days in filing the Petition.”  

9.       In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is not only vague to the core but also far from satisfactory.  At the outset, it may be noted that “free certified copy” of the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 had been issued to the Petitioner on 15.02.2016 and, going by the same, the Revision Petition, which was required to be filed within a period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, has been filed with an inordinate delay of 253 days, and not the 50 days, as pleaded by the Petitioner.  When the Petitioner did not turn up before the State Commission to contest the Appeal, the impugned order had been passed and, hence, the contention of the Petitioner that the State Commission had passed ex-parte order does merit acceptance.  In the absence of any documentary evidence, the plea of the Petitioner that it was not aware of the impugned order also seems nothing but an afterthought.  It was only on receipt of the notice, on 05.09.2016, in the Execution proceedings initiated by the Complainant, that the Petitioner came out of his slumber and decided to challenge the order.  It is manifest that, even after receipt of the said notice, the Petitioner still took more than three months in obtaining another certified copy of the impugned order, which had been issued on 21.12.2016.  Even thereafter it took over a month in filing the present Revision Petition, knowing fully well that time to file the Revision Petition had already expired.  Had the Petitioner been really aggrieved with the order, now sought to be impugned, he would not waste so much time in filing the Petition.    

10.     In view of the above, we are of the opinion that apart from the fact that the Application is not bonafide, the Petitioner has failed to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of 253 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.    

11.     In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we have also kept in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578], to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, particularly when in the first instance the Petitioner had not challenged the finding recorded by the District Forum, holding him deficient in rendering services to the Complainant.                        

12.     Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed on the short ground of limitation.