These Revision Petitions under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) have been filed by M/s Karvy Computer Shares Pvt. Ltd., against a common order dated 25.02.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeals No. 826 of 2011 and 426 of 2011.  By the impugned order, the State Commission, while dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner and Reliance Money Ltd./Reliance Securities Ltd., Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 respectively in the complaint, has upheld the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short “the District Forum”).  The District Forum vide its order dated 22.12.2010 had allowed the complaint preferred by Respondent No.1 herein and directed the Opposite Parties to pay to him a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony together with costs of Rs.5000/- within two months from the date of that order.       

          It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petitions are barred by limitation as there is a delay of 359 days in filing the same.  Applications praying for condonation of the said delay have been filed alongwith the Revision Petitions.  In paragraphs 3 to 7 of the said applications, the explanation furnished for the delay is as under:

“3.      That the impugned Judgment was passed on 26.2.2013.

4.       That certified copy of judgment was received from Jaipur Office of the petitioner 28.2.2013.  The same was forwarded to the registered office of the petitioner at Hyderabad.

5.       That thereafter, the records of the case were called by the Hyderabad office and opinion was sought for filing the revision petition.  The records were forwarded to counsel at Delhi and to prepare a draft revision petition.  The draft revision petition was prepared.  However due to shortage of some documents, the records were again called from Jaipur office.  The records received.  However, the present case file was wrongly tagged with the old and disposed off cases in the office of the counsel.  Mr Madan Kumar Clerk of the advocate also left his services.  Mr Mukesh Kumar a new clerk was appointed and old records/case file was traced and the present case file was traced and located in said record.

6.       That thereafter, the case was forwarded to the authorized representative of the petitioner and signature of the A/R of the petitioner took some time.  Therefore, some time was lost in communication.

7.       That time was lost due to above reasons in preparation, approval from Hyderabad office which time and thereafter, the present petition was filed.”

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

          In our view, the explanation furnished by the petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory.  The petitioner has not indicated the dates as to when  :- (i) the copy of order was forwarded from their office at Jaipur to their registered office at Hyderabad; (ii) the records of the case were called for and sent to the office at Hyderabad; and (iii) the records were forwarded to the Counsel at Delhi for preparation of draft Revision Petitions.  As regards the plea of tagging of the case file with old and disposed of cases in the office of the Counsel and the time taken for approval from the office at Hyderabad and for taking the signature of the authorized representative on the Revision Petitions, it is equally vague.  The petitioner has been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting its cause.  The explanation 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 359 days in filing of the present Revision Petitions.  Consequently, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.