These Revision Petitions under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) have been filed by the Complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lucknow, against orders dated 25.04.2013 and 09.12.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Revisions No. 206 & 207 of 2009 and Miscellaneous Cases No. 201 & 202 of 2013 respectively.  By order dated 25.04.2013 the State Commission has dismissed the Revision Petitions preferred by the petitioner for non-prosecution.  By the latter order, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. [(2011) 9 SCC 541], the State Commission has dismissed the applications for recall of order dated 25.04.2013. 

          It is pointed out by the office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation as there is a delay of 167 days in filing the same.  Applications praying for condonation of the said delay have been filed alongwith the Revision Petitions.  In paragraphs 2 to 6 of the said applications, the explanation furnished for the delay is as under:

“2.      That the counsel of the revisionist being busy in Hon’ble High Court in other matter could not appear before the State Commission on 25.04.2013.

3.       That on 20.03.2013 the nephew of the complainant/revisionist met with an accident and the complainant had gone to hospital for admitting him.  After some time the doctors declared him dead.  The complainant came to his house with the dead body, the whole family became sorrowful.  Being in sorrowful condition the complainant could not appear on 25.04.2013 before the State Commission and the revision was dismissed in default.

4.       That due to their family condition the complainant could not know the order dated 25.04.2013.

5.       That the complainant/revisionist .. (sic) .. on 25.11.2013 from the cause list of the State Commission and came to know that the revision has been dismissed on 25.04.2013 in default.

6.       That the revisionist filed a restoration application misc. no. 20/13 alongwith application u/s 5 Limitation Act supported with affidavit 05.12.2013 before the State Commission which was dismissed on 09.12.2013 by the State Commission.”

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

          In our view, the explanation furnished by the petitioner for his non-appearance before the State Commission on the date fixed i.e. 25.04.2013 as also for condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petitions is wholly unsatisfactory.

          Regarding non-appearance, the explanation is that it was on account of the death of his nephew on 20.03.2013 (page 7A of the paper-book).  However, the Revision Petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.04.2013, i.e. after a gap of over one month.  Thus, the explanation is not bonafide.  Further, assuming it to be so, application for recall of the said order was filed on 05.12.2013, i.e. after a period of over seven months, for which period too there is no explanation. 

          Regarding the delay of 167 days in filing the present Revision Petitions, we find that in the applications for condonation of delay no attempt has been made by the petitioner to explain the same and whatever explanation has been furnished, it pertains to the question of non-appearance before the State Commission on the date fixed, when the Revision Petitions preferred by him were dismissed for non-prosecution.  We are of the view that the petitioner has been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause.  The explanation furnished by him lacks bonafides.     

          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 that while deciding an application filed 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 167 days in filing the present Revision Petitions.  Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.