The Indian Railways, which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, has preferred this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), questioning the legality of order, dated 24.07.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”), in Appeal No.80/2011.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner against order, dated 17.8.2011, made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bikaner in C.No.06/2010, inter alia, directing the Petitioner to pay to the Respondent/Complainant, for the loss of his luggage while travelling from Bikaner to Burdwan, as well as towards mental harassment and litigation expenses a compensation of `30,000/- within 30 days failing which interest @ 9% per annum was payable.   

        Since there is delay of 107 days in filing the Revision Petition, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, with the following explanation :

“The State Commission had passed the impugned order on 24.7.2013.  There was strike in the Bar Association, Bikaner in High Court Bench at Bikaner Division from 1.8.13 to 31.8.13.  The certified copy of the impugned order was obtained on 24.09.2013.  Meanwhile, the file was sent to Headquarter for opinion on 12.9.13, to the CLA on 24.9.13, to the ADGM on 24.9.13, to DGM on 26.9.13 and to CCM/FM on 7.10.13.  It was received back on 17.10.13 and letter was sent to the Railway Advocate on 25.10.13.  It was submitted to Railway Advocate on 2.11.13.  Thereafter the Railway Advocate prepared the Revision Petition and all the documents i.e. complaint, reply, order of District Forum and order of State Commission which are all in Hindi were translated into English.  All this exercise has taken considerable time.”

In our opinion, the explanation is wholly unsatisfactory.  It is conspicuously silent as to when free copy of the order was served on the Petitioner and when an application for supply of Certified Copy of the order was filed.  It is a typical case of file pushing from one table to another, which practice has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ­­­­­­­­­Postmaster General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. – (2012) 3 SCC 563.  Bearing in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the said case and in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial  Development  Authority – (2011) 14 SCC 578,  wherein it was opined that entertainment of highly belated petitions defeats the very object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 107 days in filing of the Revision Petition, more so in a case where the total compensation awarded is `30,000/-.

In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.