This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 02.07.2018 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) in MA no.1500 of 2018 in/ and First Appeal no.357 of 2018.

        There is a delay of 260 days in filing the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that both the fora below had given concurrent findings in favour of the complainant. However, he has a strong case on merit and therefore, the delay may be condoned. The delay has occurred due to arranging of some documents.

        On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant states that both the fora below have given concurrent findings and further the scope under the revision petition is quite limited. He further states that the delay of 260 days have not been properly explained in the application for condonation of delay.

        I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.  An application has been filed for condoning the delay of 260 days in filing the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the time was taken in arranging the documents. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable because in the revision petition no new documents are generally required.

        In the present case, concurrent findings have been given by the fora below and therefore, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited in the revision petition. The facts cannot be raised, because the entire petition is based on reassessment of the facts which is not possible in the present case. In spite of the concurrent findings of facts the petitioner has filed the present revision petition with a delay of 260 days. The only reasons given for the delay is that he is arranging some documents which were not arranged in time hence the delay has occurred in filing the present revision petition, therefore, this reasons cannot be accepted for condoning the delay of 260 days. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), the Apex Court has highlighted the object of Consumer Protection Act particularly expeditious and in expensive remedy to the consumers.

  “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”.

        Based on the above judgment, it is clear that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner in filing the present revision petition. Accordingly, I do not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 260 days in filing the present revision petition, accordingly the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition no. 1054 of 2019 is also dismissed on the ground of delay.