DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Order dated 31.03.2014 passed in first appeal No. 617 of 2013 by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the State Commission dismissed the petitioner’s appeal with cost of Rs.5,000/- and upheld the Order dated 30.05.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (for short, ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum vide its Order dated 30.05.2013 allowed the complaint with the following directions: “In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,700/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred Only) with 10% interest per annum from date of complaint till payment along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) towards the agony and loss sustained by the complainant, with in one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.” 3. Aggrieved by the Order dated 31.05.2013 of the District Forum, the opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its Order dated 31.03.2014 dismissed the appeal with the following directions: “ - - - 9. The Forum has directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.17,700/- to the complainant being the price of the lap top with interest at the rate 10% per annum and also a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum. In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.” 4. There is inordinate delay of 1280 days in filing the revision petition before this Commission. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. The stated reason for delay in filing the revision petition, as mentioned in para 3 of the application, is as below: “3. That the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 was issued on 16.04.2014 and was received by the petitioner on 20.04.2014 and thereafter the petitioner being a Unit of the Kerala Government, General Education Department contacted the Advocate General and opinion was taken to challenge the order of the State Commission. At this point of time there was a change of government and consequent change of standing counsel. Though subsequent orders of the State Commission were forwarded to the new standing counsel and he had filed the same as R.P. Nos. 4 to 16 of 2017 and R.P. Nos. 550 to 562 of 2017, this matter happened to be missed. When the Petitioner Department had contacted the counsel for getting the number of the Revision Petition by letter dated 16.12.2017, then alone it was noticed that in the present matter a Revision Petition is not filed. A true copy of the letter dated 16.12.2017 issued by the Petitioner to the Standing Counsel is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P/2.” 5. We note that the stated reason for delay “That the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 was issued on 16.04.2014 and was received by the petitioner on 20.04.2014 and thereafter the petitioner being a Unit of the Kerala Government, General Education Department contacted the Advocate General and opinion was taken to challenge the order of the State Commission. At this point of time there was a change of government and consequent change of standing counsel. Though subsequent orders of the State Commission were forwarded to the new standing counsel and he had filed the same as R.P. Nos. 4 to 16 of 2017 and R.P. Nos. 550 to 562 of 2017, this matter happened to be missed. When the Petitioner Department had contacted the counsel for getting the number of the Revision Petition by letter dated 16.12.2017, then alone it was noticed that in the present matter a Revision Petition is not filed.” is illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the revision petition. 6. No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible. 7. We however want to also satisfy ourselves that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on merit, we but do not find any reason visible to convince us that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay in the revision filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below is not condoned. 8. The application for condonation of delay being unconvincing and devoid of merit is dismissed. Resultantly the revision petition is dismissed on limitation. 9. Needless to add that the District Forum shall proceed with execution as per the law. | 
