Mr. Justice S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member—We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the application for condonation of delay of 65 days as well as on merits

2. This revision is directed against an order passed by the Rajasthan Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in Appeal No. 1341 of 2004 dated 28.9.2004 confirming the order of the District Forum.

3. The only ground on which the delay of 65 days is being sought to be condoned is as under:

“That after receiving the certified copy of the order dated 28.9.2004, the petitioner department immediately started the process. The legal opinion was obtained from the Government Counsel immediately thereafter the matter was referred to the Department of Post, Head Quarter, Delhi, thereafter the matter was referred to the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice. The Department of Legal Affairs appointed the Government Counsel to pursue the matter and thereafter, the matter has been discussed and the present petition is being prepared. The above mentioned process had taken much time, due to which the accompanying Revision Petition could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation and some delay had occurred.

That the delay in filing of the Revision Petition is bona fide and unintentional and occurred for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner department.

4. The revision petition was filed on 2.3.2005. It was claimed that the petitioner being a Government Department could not file the petition directly as the matter had to be examined at various levels by various Government Departments and also required legal opinion. Unfortunately, the petitioner had not disclosed the date-wise movement of the file from one table to another table and the time spent at each table and Department. It does not show any urgency or importance of the matter. The approach is casual and it cannot be approved. This leads us to hold that the reasons given are inadequate and insufficient to condone the delay.

5. As regards merits of the case, the complainant-Smt. Vijay Laxmi had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- in her single account and opened with the appellant in the scheme. The complainant had deposited the amount in 10 accounts as joint holder along with others in Account Nos. 1001420, 1001421, 1001422, 1001635, Rs. 73,764/- had accrued as interest on the principal. The amount was also refunded along with interest. Since the appellant could not deposit the amount to the extent as it had been deposited under the rules of the Scheme the audit party raised objection and required the appellant-respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 73,764/-. There is no dispute about the fact that the amount was deposited in a transparent way in different accounts along with other joint holders. Supposing that this amount could not be deposited and the amount was deposited under void agreement, the matter would be governed by the provisions under Sections 65, 70 and 73 of the Contract Act. It would be evident even under void agreement the petitioner is required to restore or to make compensation for it to the person from whom the petitioner received the amount and compensation would include interest on deposit, which accrued on it. In terms of Section 70 of the Contract Act, since the deposit was not gratuitous, the petitioner having enjoyed the benefits thereof is bound to pay compensation to the complainant in respect thereof or to restore amount deposited and the benefit of using the money. Under second part of Section 73, the deposit made in National Saving Certificates evidently created obligations resembling obligations created by a contract and the complainant who would be injured by the failure of the petitioner to discharge the obligation under this section is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person like the petitioner “had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract”.

6. In addition to it, explanation to Section