After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this revision petition was dismissed today for reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are as under: 2. By its order dated 17.06.2011, the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission dismissed the petitioner appeal against the order dated 22.10.2010 of the Sri Ganganagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, he District Forum on account of delay of 62 days in filing the appeal. 3. The respondents/complainants had approached the District Forum with allegations of deficiency in service n the part of the petitioner in that the latter had forcibly seized the tractor (orse trolley from them, without prior notice, on the ground of failure to pay the monthly installments of the loan from July 2003 to February 2004 because the tractor met with an accident in July 2003 and the complainants, being dependent for their livelihood on the said vehicle, were unable to raise money to either pay the installments or for repairs, which they could do only in March 2004. On remand by the State Commission, the District Forum heard the respondentscomplaint in the absence of the petitioner because the latter did not appear despite notice and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. The District Forum noticed that though the petitioner/ opposite party OP, did no finance the trolley it attached the trolley too along with the tractor; and returning a finding of deficiency in service, ordered return of the tractor and trolley to the respondents/complainants and also payment of compensation of Rs.21,000/- and costs of Rs.11,000/- to them within one month. 4. The law on the subject of condonation of delay in filing the complaint has been reiterated in clear terms by the Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of State Bank of India vs B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) [ (2009) 5 SCC 121 ]. Among the principles highlighted by the Apex Court is that the cause (s) for the delay has/ have to be ufficientfor the Forum to condone the delay for reasons to be recorded. What would constitute sufficient cause will of course depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule could be laid down. So far as the need to establish sufficiency of the cause of delay is concerned, what applies to delay in respect condonation of delay in filing complaints also holds good for that in case of appeals. 5. In this case, the petitioner is a large industrial company with matching human and financial resources at its command. For reasons unclear, it failed to remain present before the District Forum during adjudication of the complaint even though the State Commission had remanded the complaint. It is also inconceivable that the persons concerned in the petitioner organisation were not aware of the provisions relating to Consumer Protection Act, 1986 regarding filing of the appeal against the order of the District Forum. The petitioner has not even produced with this revision petition a copy of its application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission. This is not the conduct of a diligent entity. Therefore, when the State Commission found that the reasons put forth by the petitioner to explain the delay in filing its appeal were not justified, there is no reason to take a different view at the revisionary level. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.