Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 19.06.2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai against a common order in F.A. No.737 of 1999 & F.A. No.742 of 1999. The appeals before the State Commission were filed by both sides – complainant and opposite party no.2, i.e., the present petitioner against an order dated 16.03.1999 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.133 of 1998. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant with a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.78,980/- towards expenses and loss suffered by the complainant with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization besides awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- as the cost of the proceedings. State Commission dismissed both the appeals upholding the order of the consumer forum. The revision petition has been filed after a delay of 146 days and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed along with the memo of revision petition. In para no.2 of the said application, the complainant has given only one reason for the said delay which we would like to reproduce here:- “It is submitted that the certified copy of the impugned order was received on 04.09.2010. Thereafter, board resolution was passed on 08.03.2011 for filing of the present petition.” Assuming that the averment made in the said paragraph was correct still the crucial question is as to whether this would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ in order to entitle the petitioner exercise of judicial discretion in their favour. In our view, the answer is big ‘No’ because if a company like the petitioner takes more than six months to pass a resolution to file proceedings against an order which they wish to challenge, they do so at their own peril. The law provides 90 days time for filing proceedings like the present one which by no standard can be said to be a small time for the purpose. It appears that the petitioner was not at all serious to challenge the finding and orders passed by the fora below and perhaps they were so advised once the execution was taken out for the enforcement of the orders passed by the fora below. In these circumstances, we decline the prayer for condonation of delay. Although we wanted to dwell on the merits of the matter but learned counsel for the petitioner prays that we may not do so else that finding or order may constitute a precedent. So, we are not recording any finding on merits of the case. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. | 
