1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Spice Jet Ltd., Opposite Party No. 2 in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 04.05.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.132 of 2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 29.02.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 506 of 2014, preferred by Respondent No.1/Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint against Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, including the Petitioner herein, had directed them to reimburse to the Complainant a sum of ₹51,303/- (i.e. ₹67,126 - ₹15,823), spent by him for return journey through Go Air, besides paying a further sum of ₹15,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, with default stipulation of paying interest @ 18% p.a. on the payments against reimbursement and compensation from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization.  However, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint qua Opposite Party No.3, i.e. the Tour Operator.   

2.       The Complainant had booked four tickets for travel by the Petitioner Airlines for self and other family members.  As per the tickets, which had been booked for Chandigarh – Srinagar Sector, the outbound journey was to be performed on 08.06.2014 and inbound journey on 15.06.2014.  Though, in order to avoid tension and harassment, the Complainant had booked the said tickets in February, 2014, he received a call from the said Airlines, stating that the return flight booked for 15.06.2014 from Srinagar to Chandigarh had been cancelled, with offer to arrange for the tickets on some other date.  The Representatives of the Airlines had assured the Complainant that the tickets for return journey for 16.06.2014 would be confirmed by 10/11.06.2014 but the same did not happen.  Due to the said reason, the Complainant had to spend a sum of ₹68,284/- towards purchase of fresh tickets for journey from Srinagar to New Delhi, and thereafter a further sum of ₹6,000/- as charges for hiring a taxi.  The Complainant got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but of no avail.  In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant had, inter alia, prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay to him the aforesaid amounts, spent by him on air journey from Srinagar to New Delhi and on road journey from New Delhi to Chandigarh, besides a compensation of ₹3,00,000/- on account of harassment etc. suffered because of deficient services of the Opposite Parties.

3.       Upon notice, all the Opposite Parties contested the Complaint. On appreciation of the material available before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of Spice Jet Airlines, the Petitioner herein.  Consequently, while dismissing the Complaint qua the Tour Operator, the District Forum allowed the same against the Petitioner and issued the afore-noted directions to it.    

4.       As noted above, aggrieved by the said order, Spice Jet Ltd. unsuccessfully carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission.  Hence, the present Revision Petition.    

5.       It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 176 days in filing the same.  An Application, praying for condonation of the delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraph – 3 thereof, the Petitioner has furnished the following explanation:   

“3.      That the impugned order was passed on 04.05.2016.  The free copy of the same was dispatched on 13/14.05.2016 and the same was received by the Appellant on 18.05.2016, by post.  It is submitted that in first week of August, 2016, the concerned Legal Manager of the Petitioner furnished the certified copy of the impugned order along with other documents/file to the undersigned counsel instructing him to file Petition before this Hon’ble Court.  It is, however, submitted that since last week of July, 2016, the mother of the undersigned counsel has not been keeping well and she ultimately left for heavenly abode on 22.11.2016.  The undersigned counsel could get free from last rites of his mother in second week of December, 2016 and remained very disturbed thereafter.  It is submitted that the undersigned counsel totally forgot filing of the Petition in the present case.  It is submitted that in last week of January, 2017, when the Petitioner received notice of execution from the Ld. District Forum and he enquired about the status of Revision (which was to be filed in the present case) from the undersigned counsel, only at that point of time, he realised that no Revision Petition has been filed.  It is under the aforesaid circumstances only, the present Petition is being filed immediately after realising the aforesaid.  It is submitted that delay in filing the Petition is neither intentional nor deliberate but is due to aforesaid facts and circumstances only.  …”

6.       In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner does not inspire any confidence as it is not only vague, it is an afterthought as well.      

7.       Admittedly, certified copy of the impugned order was received by the Petitioner on 18.05.2016 and, therefore, the Revision Petition was to be filed on or before 16.08.2016.  However, as per the explanation furnished, the same was sent to the Counsel only sometime in the first week of August, 2016, by which time the substantial period of limitation to file the Revision Petition was already over.  Under the circumstances, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the mother of the Counsel had fallen ill and ultimately passed away on 22.11.2016, the Petitioner could have got the Revision Petition filed from any other lawyer, instead of waiting for the same lawyer to get back to his normal work after the bereavement.  Perhaps, it was an innocuous order for the Petitioner, inasmuch it did not receive any attention at Petitioner’s end till it received the notice in Execution proceedings.  It belies our conviction that there was no other Advocate in the panel of the Petitioner Airlines to pursue the matter and the Petitioner left the matter at the mercy of only one Counsel and did not keep a track of it, more so, when the certified copy of the impugned order remained in custody of the Legal Manager of the Petitioner for over two months.      

8.       In view of the above, we are of the opinion that apart from the fact that the Application is not bonafide, the Petitioner Airlines has failed to make a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of 176 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.   Accordingly, we decline to condone the same.

9.       In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we have also kept 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 belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained. 

10.     Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed on the short ground of limitation.