IMPORTANT POINT
If sufficient cause not proved, nothing further has to be done; application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone.

This revision is directed against the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, “the State Commission) dated 29.6.2011 whereby the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal with following directions: -

“In the result the appeal is allowed in part and directed the opposite parties 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 to pay to the complainants 1 to 7, the amounts paid by them to the opposite parties as per the records and they directed to produce the statement of account before the Forum below within 15 days and the appellant/opposite parties shall produce their statement of account also before the Forum below and the admitted amount alone is liable to be paid by the appellants opposite parties to the complainants with 12% interest from the date of filing of the complaint before the Forum below. Suppose the opposite parties did not produce the statement of accounts before the Forum below within 15 days, the appellant/opposite parties are liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant and as ordered by the Forum below in the order. In other words in such a circumstances the order of the Forum below is binding to both the parties. This appeal is disposed accordingly.”

2. Revision, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days with a delay of 175 days as per the petitioners and 177 days as per the computation done by the registry. The petitioners, therefore, has moved an application for condonation of delay.

3. Before adverting to the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in filing of the revision petition, it is pertinent to note that the District Forum, Ernakulam while holding the petitioners guilty of deficiency in service allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay sum referred to in para-1 of the order to the complainants No.1 to 7 with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the complaint till payment, besides Rs.350/- as cost of proceedings to each of the complainants. On perusal of the para-1 of the order we find that the petitioners have been directed to pay to the complainant Sri Thankamma Rs.22,000/-, Sri T.D. Babu Rs.17,000/-, Sri Johnson Rs.20,000/-, Sri E.A. Krishnan Rs.23,500/-, Sri Viji Rs.19,000/-, Sri Anni Rs.5,300/- and Sri Aliyar Rs.4,240/-. For the above petty amounts directed to be p aid to the respondents/complainants, revision petition has been preferred.

4. Coming to the explanation for delay, learned Shri Shyam Padman, Advocate for the petitioners submit that the delay in filing of the revision petition is unintentional. Actually the petitioner P.K. Krishnankutti was pursuing this matter on behalf of all the petitioners and he was given the task of giving necessary instructions to the counsel for filing the revision petition. It is contended that Shri Krishnankutti became ill and had to undergo treatment. He was almost disabled and partly bed ridden and therefore he could not instruct the counsel to file the revision petition in time. It is further contended that petitioners at the relevant time was suffering from Dementia and Isehaemic heart disease. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to medical certificate purported to have been issued by Dr. H. Ahmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that otherwise also the petitioners have a very strong case in revision and if the delay is not condoned it will result in injustice to the petitioners.

5. We do not find merit in the aforesaid explanation. From the record it is obvious that there are six petitioners. Medical certificate in respect of P.K. Krishnakutty has been filed. If Mr. P.K. Krishnakutty was actually suffering from Dementia and Isehaemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus and COPD since 2005, there is no reason why the other petitioners could not have taken onus upon themselves to file the revision petition. There is no explanation in this regard. The me