IMPORTANT POINT
Revision filed with delay of 275 days in absence of any convincing reasons for condonation of delay was liable to be dismissed.

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment and Order of the State Commission with a delay of 276 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. The reasons given in para-3 of this application are as under:-

“It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment in Appeal No. 647 of 2002 was passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacadu, Thiruvananthapuram on 28.5.2008 and the same was posted to the petitioner on 30.7.2008. Due to heavy loss, the petitioner company stopped its activities during June 2008 and the office was not functioning regularly. It is submitted that the receipt of the order copy was not informed to the Managing Director by the staff who received it and the petitioner came to know about the disposal of the matter after only in the first week of this month. Thereafter, the petitioner searched the old files and found out the same. It is submitted that immediately after the same the petitioner came to Delhi for filing the Revision Petition. However, on account of the reasons stated hereinabove some delay was caused in filing the present Revision Petition. It is respectfully submitted that such delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and has been caused for reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. It is, therefore, just and necessary that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to condone the delay of _________days in .filing the instant Revision Petition otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss, hardship and injury.”

2. These reasons given raise several questions i.e. on which date the staff member received a copy of the State Commission’s order, on which date the staff informed the M.D., on which date the petitioner searched the old files, on which date he found the same and on which date the petitioner came to Delhi etc. etc.

3. The Revision Petitioner has not even calculated the number of days of delay and he has left it blank to be filled by this Commission. This shows callous attitude. We are not at all convinced by the reasons given for condonation of delay. Hence this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay only.

4. There is a direct judgment on limitation under Consumer Protection Act delivered recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) SLT 793 wherein Section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act has been quoted in extenso:

“24 A Limitation period -(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed, thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the comp