1. Complainant JMR Medical Centre has filed this revision petition against the orders of the A P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FASR No. 8307 of 2010. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay of 570 days in filing it. Before that, the complaint of the petitioner had itself been dismissed by the District Consumer Forum Srikakulam, holding that:-
“Admittedly, the complainant is a commercial organization X-Ray Processing Unit was unit for dong business. The complainant has claimed that he incurred loss in business due to poor quality of images produced by the unit. The complainant has not claimed that he comes under the exception “earning his livelihood by means of self employment.” We therefore hold that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we answer the point accordingly.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.”
2. The revision petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission questioning its correctness and stating that:-
“The State Commission passed the order under a misconception that the filing of appeal is delayed by 570 days instead of deciding the application in re-presentation/refilling the matter and the petitioner who is a litigant cannot be punished for the mistake of the advocate’s office.”
3. The revision petitioner has also sought to rely on the following decisions:-
“1. N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123
2. Selvaraj Vs. Paulraj, C.R.P.NPD. No.3213 of 2012.”
However, no attempt is made to show how these decisions are relevant to the facts of the petitioner’s case.
4. We have carefully perused the records filed on behalf of the petitioner and heard Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocate for the revision petitioner.
5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has considered in detail the explanation offered on behalf of the appellant/revision petitioner in explanation of the delay. The main argument of the revision petitioner before the State Commission was that:-
“The petitioner averred in the petition that the file was entrusted to his senior Advocate A.S. Sreekanth Babu to represent the appeal before the Commission. However, he shifted and set up the practice at Tirupathi and all through he was under the impression that the appeal was filed and represented in time and when contacted they came to know that the bundle was returned. However, the appeal bundle got mixed up with some other files in their office and could not traced and as such a delay of 570 days was ensued in re-presenting the appeal. The delay was neither wilful nor wanton.”
6. Considering the above explanation, the State Commission has noted that:-
“The petitioner in order to explain the delay did not file the affidavit of his Senior Advocate to show that the matter was originally entrusted to him and later he shifted to Tirupathi and about a week back he received the returned bundle. However, the same was mixed up with other files. Evidently the returned appeal was resubmitted with the aforementioned petition with a routine and rigmarole ground that the bundle got mixed with some other files and it was traced out recently etc., without any iota of evidence as to who got mixed up the file and as to when it was misplaced and it was traced and the action taken against the erring person by the advocate office for misplacing the file without complying the objections raised by the office. All these pleas are raised to get over the delay in re-submitting the appeal within the time allowed.”
7. We do not find any error in the above view taken by the State Commission. We also do not find any merit in the argument of the revision petitioner that the litigant cannot be punished for the mistake of the office of his Advocate. There is nothing to show if any actions was initiated by the revision petitioner/Complainant against his Advocate for this mistake or lapse or deficiency of service. The State Commission has very rightly observed that the question of limitation has to be examined with reference to the provisions in Consumer Protection Act and the law as enunciated through the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
8. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been 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.” 9. In the result the revision petitioner has completely failed to make out any case against the impugned order. The revision petition is therefore dismissed for want of merit. | 
