PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.7.2014 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) 2014 in Misc. Application No. MA/13/167 in Appeal No. A/13/310 – Jalinder Krishna Babar Vs. Authorized Signatory/Officer, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant filed complaint before District Forum against OP/respondent for direction to the OP to re-schedule payment of remaining instalment of vehicle’s loan and pay compensation and salary of driver and cleaner. OP resisted complaint and learned District forum dismissed complaint. Complainant filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed application for condonation of delay and in turn dismissed appeal against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of reasonable explanation for condonation of delay in filing appeal, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application and appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and delay be condoned and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Application filed by complainant before State Commission for condonation of delay reveals that complainant was doing occupation of agriculture as well as doing occupation of transport of goods for which purpose he purchased vehicle and got it financed from OP. It was further mentioned that after order of District Forum dated 6.5.2013 he approached his Advocate at Sangli in the end of May, 2013 collected papers and decided to file appeal and he approached Advocate at Mumbai and handed over papers for filing appeal, who filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay and delay of 105 days may be condoned. Learned State Commission rightly observed that appellant has not specified in the application when he approached to the Advocate at Mumbai and handed over papers to him. From the perusal of application it can be inferred that when he collected papers in the end of May, 2013, he must have contacted his Advocate at Mumbai immediately, but no explanation has been given for not filing appeal within prescribed period and no reason has been given for not filing appeal upto 105 days of expiry of period of limitation for filing appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner being an agriculturist and residing at remote place affected by drought, appeal could not be filed in time. Perusal of complaint and application itself reveals that complainant was not engaged only in agriculture, but was also carrying-on-business of transportation of goods for which purpose he purchased aforesaid vehicle and got it financed from OP. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that on account of residing in drought affected area; complainant could not file appeal in time. As he failed to mention any specific date of handing over papers to his Advocate in Mumbai, inordinate delay of 105 days in filing appeal cannot be condoned in the light of following judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” 8. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; “We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.” 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 – Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed 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 disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 105 days. In such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing application for condonation of delay and appeal as barred by limitation. 12. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. | 
