REKHA GUPTA Revision petition no. 891 of 2012 has been filed against the impugned order dated 30th January 2013 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (he State Commission. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that the petitioner opened an account with ANZ Grindlays Bank at Kolkata long back, for share trading business vide ID no. 11871890. Subsequently, Standard Chartered Bank has entered into the Banking business with the said ANZ Grindlays Bank in the title of Standard Chartered Grindlays Banks. Thereafter, the name of the Bank has been renamed as Standard Chartered Bank. The petitioner had made payments as per bill of the Bank as under: S No. DD no. Date In favour of Issued by Amount (i) 210377 26/08/2000 ANZ Bank DSP Coop. Bank 965/- (ii) 216855 14/06/2011 Standard Chartered Grindlays Allahabad Bank 655/- (iii) 652335 Std. Ch. Bank HDFC Bank 400/- (iv) 186267 11/05/2003 -do- -do- 700/- Rs. 700/- was paid against their billing instruction dated 06.10.2002 for Rs.320/- i.e., an extra amount of Rs.380/- was paid as advance for next billing instruction, which was lying in my account as credit balance. On the other hand, the bill as outstanding in petitioner account dated 05.01.2005 states that on 04.10.2002 the pending amount was Rs.17/- only for which the respondent/ opposite party charged Rs.8/- as interest, whereas in the statement of transaction dated 06.10.2002 exhibits that a total due amount is Rs.320/-. It reveals that respondent does not maintain their records and accounts correctly having no authenticity and as such the complainant has been suffering financial losses. On 10/12/2003 the respondent intimated that there was an outstanding bill of Rs.969/- as on 10.12.2003 which the petitioner should pay within 7 days, failing which the respondent would suspend the account. The demand of the respondent had no authenticity and the petitioner felt that this claim had no basis since he had already deposited all the legitimate amounts and hence, he did not make further payment resulting, he his account being suspended without giving him any information by the respondent and till then no transaction, whatever was made. And thus the petitioner had to incur loss in share transaction. In February 2004, he had given a written notice to the Bank about the suspension of my account under their acknowledgement. But no reply was given by them. The petitioner has not filed the copy of the written statement of the respondent before this Commission. However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muchipara, Burdwan (he District Forum vide their order dated 11th July 2011 have stated that he respondent bank has contested the case by filing written statement denying inter alia all the material allegations in the complaint. It is specifically stated in the written version that subject matter of the petitioner pertains to the years 2000 to 2003 and the latest whisper on the same was made, as alleged, in the year 2004-2005 and even thereafter more than four years have elapsed for which the case is barred by limitation under section 24 A of the C P Act. It is further contended that simply by letter dated 05.11.2009 as submitted by the petitioner where the reference of the letter dated 24.06.2008 of the respondent denying the allegations of the petitioner, the cause of action for the case cannot be extended and for the reasons that the case is definitely barred by limitation The District Forum then gave the following order: oth the points are taken up together for a compact discussion in this case. During the argument learned lawyer of the respondent has referred to the order no. 15 as passed by this Forum on 14.09.2010 and submitted that the Forum has allowed opportunity to the petitioner to incorporate the fact of its letter dated 05.11.2009 with reference to respondent letter dated 24.06.2008 by way of amendment of the complaint. The order was very clear and explicit. But the same was not done by the petitioner. If in a particular allegation is not incorporated in the pleading the same cannot be relied on for getting any benefit out of it. The complaint as it is without amendment is definitely barred by limitation. As such the case is not maintainable. That apart the allegation of the petitioner regarding the fact that the respondent Bank never intimated regarding suspension of his account is baseless in view of the letters of intimation as sent by the respondent on 15.03.2004 and 05.02.2005, as it appears from the Xerox copies filed under Annexure A. Admittedly the petitioner took no step as it appears from his averments in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the complaint. In such view of the fact the case of the petitioner fails as it is time barred and not maintainable. Hence, that the case be dismissed without cost Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. Along with the appeal an application for condonation of delay was filed. In the application for condonation of delay nowhere has the period of delay has been mentioned. The reasons given are as follows: Before the order is passed the petitioner shifted his residence from 1a/2 Akbar Road Durgapur to 2/44 Udainagar PO Amroi Durgapur 713 204. For this reasons he was not in touch with his authorised representative who was handling the case before the District Consumer Forum on his behalf. He was thus not aware of the order so passed. The petitioner is earning for his bread and butter by giving private tuition to the school and college students. For that he cannot take frequent leave from his students. He got the certified copy of the order of the Honle District Consumer Forum only on 30.01.2012. After receipt of the order the appellant handed over all the papers to Sri Banerjee an Advocate of High Court at Calcutta. It is difficult to follow up the matter regularly with the Advocate at Calcutta from Durgapuri. As a result the appeal was not filed in time. When information regarding progress of the appeal was not received he met the Advocate. After meeting him at Calcutta in the month of July 2012 he came to know that no appeal since then was filed. On the same date the papers were taken back and handed to the present lawyer to file the Appeal. Meanwhile the petitioner wife became sick due to rheumatic Arthritis for which the petitioner could not move of Durgapur. He is having a daughter who is aged about 3 years. The delay was totally unintentional and beyond the control of the petitioner and for that the petitioner is begging pardon for the delay. The State Commission vide their order dated 30.01.2013 heard the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant and on perusal of the material on record for condonation of delay of 353 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the application for condonation of delay as also the appeal being time barred stating that e have heard the submission made by the learned and perused the papers on record. It appears that the judgment was delivered on 11.07.2011 and the certified copy was applied for on 30.01.2012. In the petitioner for condonation of delay and also in the MA 18 of 2013 there is no mention as to the reasons for delay in filing the application for certified copy. The certified copy was delivered on the very same day i.e., 30.01.2012. The appeal was filed on 30.07.2012. The medical certificate was issued on 31.12.2011. Having heard the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the materials on record we find that the delay in filing the appeal has not been sufficiently explained Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner Mr Sujit Roy has filed this present revision petition before us. The main ground for the revision petition is that the State Commission has not considered the merit of the case and nstead wanted an explanation for each and every day delay We have heard the petitioner in person and have gone through the records. With regard to the application for condonation of delay before the State Commission, the State Commission vide impugned order dated 30.01.2013 have correctly came to the conclusion that the delay in filing the appeal has not been sufficiently explained in spite of every opportunity being given. The petitioner could not give any cogent reasons or ufficient causefor condonation of delay of 353 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission. The petitioner has failed to prove sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is well settled that ufficient causefor condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact. The apex court in the case of In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has held that: t 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 In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: he party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005] In view of the above, we find that there is no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.