This appeal has been filed with a delay of 152 days which is over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a special period of limitation has been provided to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken. The
-2- inordinate delay of 152 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. The only reason given for condonation of delay is that the appellant was pursuing his remedy before the civil court. We are not satisfied with the cause shown. Day to day delay has not been explained. Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are as under: “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer -3- disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.” The inordinate delay of 152 days cannot be condoned. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Even otherwise, we do not find any substance in this revision petition. Complainant/petitioner obtained an electric connection for running ‘Atta Chakki’. He had been paying his bills regularly. On 24.04.2003 respondents checked the electricity meter and on the basis of the checking report imposed penalty of Rs.44,104/- upon the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the correctness of the checking report and the penalty imposed upon him. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to refund the amount paid by the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. Respondents being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed by the impugned order. State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner had obtained the electric connection for running ‘commercial activities’ i.e. Atta Chakki and, therefore, the dispute did not fall within the ambit of -4- consumer disputes because the controversy involved in the case pertained to commercial electricity connection. Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. A similar case came up for hearing before us in revision petition No.1142/2011. This commission agreeing with the State Commission held that the petitioner in that case would not fall within the meaning of Consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he had taken the electric connection for commercial purposes. Petitioner in the said case being aggrieved filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.35301/2011 and Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. No merits. Revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits. | 
