This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., against order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.680 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the State Commission, while holding that the appellants, petitioners herein, have failed to establish their case for condonation of delay of 90 days, has dismissed their appeal, filed against order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short “the District Forum”).  The District Forum had allowed the complaint preferred by the complainant, respondent no.1 herein, and directed the petitioners to pay him a sum of Rs.3,57,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization, besides costs of litigation, quantified at Rs.2200/-, within 30 days.

          It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 149 days in filing the same.  Application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed alongwith the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said application, the explanation furnished for the delay is as under:

“2.      That the registry of the Hon’ble State Commission dispatched the order dated 12.11.2013 on 12.12.2013 which was never received by the petitioner in its office.

3.       That on repeated enquiry from the counsel of the petitioner before the Hon’ble State Commission the stated copy of the order will be received through post at the address of the petitioner but the copy of the order never received at the address of the petitioner therefore the counsel applied for the certified copy of the order on 5.06.2014 and copy of the order was received by the petitioner insurance company on 13.06.2014 and decided to file appeal against the order of the Hon’ble State Commission and send the papers to the counsel before this Hon’ble Commission but the relevant documents of this case were not readily available with the petitioner therefore the documents collected from the counsel before Hon’ble State Commission and before Ld. District Forum Panipat which were received by the petitioner on 15.07.2014 therefore some delay occurred in filing the present petition.

4.       That the delay caused was neither intentional nor deliberate rather bonafide, due to the above said reasons.  The petitioner has good prima facie case on merit and has every hope to succeed, and the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner.  Further submit that if this Hon’ble Commission does not condone the delay in filing the present revision petition then the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

          We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of delay.

          In our view, the explanation furnished by the petitioners is wholly unsatisfactory.  The State Commission had passed the impugned order in the presence of their counsel, which they could have obtained with due diligence, if it was not received by them in normal course.  There is no explanation why the petitioners took six months in receiving a copy of the impugned order from the State Commission, which in any case they intended to challenge before this Commission.  Even the dates when the petitioners enquired from the State Commission about the copy of the impugned order have not been mentioned.  The petitioners besides taking one month in preparing the documents required for filing the present Revision Petition, after receipt of copy of the impugned order from the State Commission, also took further one month in filing the present Revision Petition, which was ultimately filed before this Commission on 08.08.2014.

          We also find that same was the approach of the petitioners before the State Commission when they sought to challenge order of the District Forum before it.  The appeal too before the State Commission had been filed with a delay of 90 days, which, for the reasons rightly discussed by the State Commission, has not been condoned.

          In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the petitioners have been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting their cause.  The explanation furnished by them lacks bonafides as well.  

          Bearing 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 highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 149 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.  Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.