ORDER

PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. There is delay of 452 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has filed application under section 5 of the limitation Act 1963 for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained from paras 4 to

25, which are reproduced here as under:-

“4. That on 24.2.12 the copy of the impugned judgment was received in the office of the claims of Railway and on 29.2.12 an opinion was sought from the senior law officer.

5. That on 12.3.12 the opinion was received and the Chief Law Assistant Sent the matter for filing Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission on the basis of the opinion of the law officer and panel advocate.

6. That on 15.3.12 the file was put for orders and accordingly vide office noting the file was sent for filing Revision Petition.

7. That on 5.4.12 the complete file of appeal was received from Chief Leg al Advisor through Chief O.S. The Chief Legal Advisor put the file for nomination of Railway advocate before Deputy Chief Commercial Manager and on the same date one Mr. Rohit Jain was nominated.

8. That on 12.4.12 the Vakalatnama was put up before C.C.M. for signature.

9. That in the month of April 2012 the file was sent to Mr. Rohit Jain, Rly, Advocate for filing Revision Petition.

10. That vide letter dated 12.6.12 and 20.7.12 the panel advocate was requested to inform the Railway with regard to the status of the Revision Petition.

11. That thereafter several letters were corresponded with the panel advocate, of Delhi but no response was received.

12. That on 18.3.12 the office of the Chief Claim Office also sought status of the Revision Petition.

13. That on 28.03.13 the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager was requested to depute CCI/TVC/Consumer Court to report the office of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager/CI/Chennai on the information given by Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate that no staff were contacted ever.

14. That it is pertinent to mention that the staff could not contact Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocte because he had already shifted his office somewhere else.

15. That on 3.4.13 Railway decided to assign the case to Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate to file Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission.

16. That vide letter dated 5.4.13 the present lawyer was requested to prepare the case for filing Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission.

17. That on 10.4.13 the entire file was handed over to Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate.

18. That on 18.4.13 panel lawyer informed the concerned Division to collect the draft of Revision Petition from his office.

19. That on 22.4.13 the draft was collected from the office of the lawyer for approval of the petitioners.

20. That on 1.5.13 the penel lawyer was requested to file the Revision Petition at earliest while sending the corrected draft of the petition.

21. That on 10.5.13 the final draft was sent to the concerned department.

22. That in the month of May, 13 the petitioners sent the signed affidavit to the panel advocate however inadvertently they mentioned the wrong chamber No.

23. That on 25.5.13 the panel lawyer was asked whether he has received the affidavits or not on telephone. The lawyer informed that he has not received any papers. However, the respondents were requested to send another copy of the signed affidavits.

24. That in the month of June, 13, another copy was sent to the chamber of the panel/lawyer. However, due to holidays of the Supreme Court the panel lawyer was not in town.

25. That on 1.7.13 on opening of the court the lawyer got the signed affidavits.”

2. The revision petition was ultimately filed before this Commission on 16.07.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that he has tried to explain day-to-day delay and it was due to change of the office of the counsel.

3. We are not satisfied by the explanation given by the counsel for the petitioners. Section 5, Limitation Act and proviso to Section 15, Consumer Protection Act is in pari materia – A bare look at Sec. 5 of the Limitation A