The burden of explaining delays lies on the applicant, and each day of delay must be justified under law.

PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA

This revision petition has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the judgment dated 06.01.2016 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 931 of 2015 and FA no. 2385 of 2015.

2. The facts stated by the petitioner in brief, are that the respondent/ complainant had purchased 65.330 grams of gold 916 gold for an amount of Rs.1,84,677/- on 14.05.2014 from the petitioner/ opposite party. The respondent/ complainant had paid an advance of Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner/ opposite party agreed to make a necklace weighing 23.330 grams with loss of weight 2.800 and Nalla Pusalu chain. The petitioner agreed to make the said items within one and a half months and, in the meantime, the respondent/ complainant was to pay the balance amount to the petitioner/ opposite party. The respondent/ complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,38,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.46,677/- as still unpaid. Respondent approached the petitioner numerous times for completing the jewellery. However, the petitioner did not prepare the ornaments even though the respondent is ready to pay the balance amount. The respondent has alleged that neither the ornaments have been delivered nor the money been refunded to the respondent/ complainant.

3. A complaint was therefore, filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Srikakulam (in short, ‘the District Forum’) by the respondent herein with the following prayer:

4. The District Forum vide its order dated 30.03.2015 allowed the complaint and ordered as under;

“In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to deliver the gold ornaments weight of 65.330 grams of 916 purity (neckless and nalla pusalu with locket) on receipt of balance amount of Rs.46,677/- or to repay the paid amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.07.2014 to till the date of repayment within one month to the complainant or else, the complainant is entitled to get the paid amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 01.07.2014 to till the date of repayment. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation ofRs.40,000/- within one month, towards mental agony, pain and sufferings, with litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- in which Rs.1000/- is included as Advocate fee.”

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal was filed with a delay of 177 days. The State Commission after hearing the counsels for the parties on the condonation of delay dismissed the appeal observing as under:

“In the light of the aforesaid settled principle of law, it must be held that the petitioner, who has utterly failed to show any cause for the delay and who has no bona fides, is not entitled for the discretionary indulgency of this Commission.

The petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.”

6. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before us.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records carefully.

8. Since the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission was not condoned and the State Commission had dismissed the appeal on the same ground, the petitioner is before this Commission to condone the delay of 177 days in filing the appeal. In view of the settled position of law that condonation of delay un