DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 09.03.2016 passed in Appeal No. 1138 of 2014 by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘State Commission’) whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Mysore Urban Development Authority ( for short ‘MUDA’) and confirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore (for short, District Forum’). 2. The District Forum partly allowed complaint No. 197 of 2013 on 28.12.2013 and directed the petitioner/OP to re-issue an alternative site in Devanoor 3rd Stage and to pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day from the date of order till the date of registration; also granted Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. 3. Being aggrieved, the OP filed first appeal before the State Commission after a delay of 220 days, which was not condoned, and hence, the appeal was dismissed on the point of limitation. Hence, the instant revision petition has been filed by the OP/petitioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission after a considerable delay of 220 days, which was rightly dismissed. Further, the instant revision petition had been filed with a delay of 41 days. Therefore, it was clear that the petitioner was not vigilant to pursue his case. The complainant prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay of 41 days in filing the instant revision petition was due to the time spent in forwarding legible copy of the orders and annexures to the counsel at Delhi. The legible copies and affidavit reached the counsel at Delhi in the month of July and on receipt of the same, steps were taken immediately to file the revision petition, which was filed on 20.07.2016. 6. So far as the delay before the State Commission is concerned, the counsel submitted that a certified copy of the order of District Forum was received by the authority/MUDA on 22.1.2014. However, the original file was not forwarded for filing the appeal; therefore, the concerned officials had not put up copy of the order with file for further action. On receipt of the communication from the complainant, steps were taken, and the counsel, who represented the authority, was requested to return the original file and the same was received in the second week of May, 2014. The authorised law officers had gone through the details on 20.05.2014 and decided on 30.5.2014 to file an appeal before the State Commission. Thereafter, on receipt of the file, the pleadings were prepared in the first week of August, 2014, and the appeal was filed in the month of August, 2014 itself. Therefore, the delay was not intentional. 7. We have perused both the applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, as well as this Commission, and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties. We are not convinced with the reasons stated in the said applications. In a catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission, it has been held that day-to-day delay in filing a case should be explained. We would like to rely upon an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), where the delay of 150 days was not condoned. In that case, it was held that : “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 Foras”. Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC ; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC). 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013. Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013. 9. Based on the precedents and foregoing discussion, the huge unexplained delay does not deserve to be condoned. Therefore, the revision petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. | 
