Petitioner was opposite party before the District Forum. Complaint filed by the complainant-respondent was allowed by the District Forum, aggrieved against which petitioner filed the appeal with a delay of eight months and ten days.

-2-

          State Commission by the impugned order has declined to condone the inordinate delay of 250 days in filing the appeal, as a consequence thereof dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

          Delay of 250 days was over and above the statutory period of 30 days in filing the appeal. Under the Consumer Protection Act, foras are required to decide the cases in time bound manner i.e. within 90 days where no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken. Delay of 250 days cannot be condoned without giving sufficient cause. The only reason given by the petitioner to condone the delay was that the file was moving from table to table to get sanction for filing the appeal.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. Delay of each day was also not explained. We do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.