REKHA GUPTA This revision petition has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, he State Commission in Appeal no. 60 of 2011 passed on 24th February 2011, whereby, the State Commission dismissed the First Appeal no. 60 of 2011 thereby affirming the order dated 29th March 2013 in CC No. 40 of 2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Adilabad (in short, he District Forum with cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/ complainant vide application no. 6277873 applied for 25 shares of Reliance Power Share and sent a cheque bearing no. 879081 for an amount of Rs.25,875/- to the petitioner/ opposite party. The petitioner neither allotted the shares nor has made any refund of the amount to the respondent. On 02.03.2009 the respondent sent a legal notice to the petitioner for refund of the amount, upon which the petitioner sent a reply stating that they have sent the refund order bearing no. 1735047 for an amount of Rs.25,875/- on 02.02.2008 and further stated that on 29.02.2008 the amount was encashed. On the date of the complaint, the respondent had not received the said amount. 3. The petitioner in their written statement has stated that since the petitioner had not allotted any shares against the application of the respondent, refund order no. 1735047 for Rs.25,875/- was issued in favour of Mr D Satyanarayan on 02.02.2008 at his registered address available with his beneficiary account. On further verification it was found that the refund order was issued on 02.02.2008 stand encashed by Mr D Satyanarayana on 29.02.2008, as per their records. Hence, there is no deficiency in service rendered by the Karvey Computershare Pvt. Ltd. 4. District Forum vide their order dated 29.03.2010 came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sent the cheque bearing no. 445502 dated 01.02.2008 for Rs.25,875/- in favour of Donthula Satyanaryana with account no. ABJ/01/3295. The cheque has nothing to do with the complainant in CC no. 40 of 2009 whose account no. is ABJ01/00003295 and the said cheque was encashed on 03.03.2008 by Donthura Satyanarayan son of Buchchi Raja Lingam. Thus the mistake arose due to the negligence or oversight of the petitioner only. It is up to the petitioner whether to recover or not from Donthula Satyanarayana but the petitioner has to pay the said amount to D Satyanarayana respondent herein holder of account no. ABJ01/00003295. Hence, the District Forum directed as under: n the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,875/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of cheque, i.e., 22.01.2008 and also reimburse the court fee of Rs.100/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the opposite party under section 25/27 of CP Act, 1986. No costs 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission gave the following conclusion: t is an undisputed fact that the complainant has issued a cheque for Rs.25,875/- to the appellant/opposite party for allotment of shares and since shares were not allotted, the appellant/opposite party sent a refund order on 02.02.2008 for Rs.25,875/-. Evidently, the said refund order was sent in favour of Donthula Satyanarayana vide account bearing no. ABJ/01/3825. It is not in dispute that the complainant name is Dothula Satyanarayana and his account number is ABJ/01/00003295. It might be that in the account of the person to whom the cheque amount was credited, must have withdrawn the same. At no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the complainant has encashed the cheque amount. He could not have encashed cheque since the account numbers are different. Except the fact that the initials in the sur names of both the account holders are the same, the complainant has nothing to do with D Satyanarayana to whom the cheque was sent for an amount of Rs.25,875/. Despite the fact that the complainant could prove it by filing documentary evidence that no amount was sent to this account, the appellant did not verify nor tried to find out as to how Donthula Satyanarayana could encash the amount. Obviously, by mistake, when the amount was sent to a wrong account, the appellant cannot take plea that it had already paid the amount. It could not be construed as valid payment of amount to the complainant. Paying of the amount to a wrong person would not free or absolve the appellant from his liability. Since no amount was received by the complainant, it would certainly have to pay the same to him. The District Forum, after considering the documentary evidence available on record, has rightly observed that there was a mistake on the part of the opposite party in sending the amount to another Satyanarayana with a wrong account holder. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the amount which was sent by the complainant. We do not see any ground whatsoever to interfere with the order of the District Forum. There are no merits in the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum with cost of Rs.500/-. Time for compliance four weeks 6. The impugned order was passed on 24.02.2011 and copy thereof was received by the petitioner on 03.06.2011. The revision petition was filed on 23.12.2011. Thereafter, a revised application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the delay in filing the present revision petition is due to the reasons as set out hereunder. . That the impugned judgment was passed on 24.02.2011. 4. That the certified copy which was to be made available free of cost was not received from the Honle Commission. 5. That on enquires made of the outcome from the counsel of the appellant therein, he found that order has been passed and applied for the certified copy which was received by him on 03.06.2011. 6. That thereafter the case was forwarded to the petitioner office at Hyderabad. 7. That records pertain to case were requisitioned from the counsel representing the petitioner at Consumer Forum at Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh, which took some time. Simultaneously, records were also requisitioned from the counsel representing the petitioner herein from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad. The aforesaid process took some time in obtaining the document and thereafter, the present revision petition prepared typing, retying and photocopy and signature of the A/R of the petitioner took some time. 8. That sometime was lost in preparation, approval from Hyderabad, Head Office which time and thereafter, on 23.11.2011, the present petition was filed. 9. In the meantime, it is also submitted that the petitioner herein also vide letter dated 04.03.2011, 17.04.2011 and 17.05.2011 requested the respondent/complainant to furnish details of his PAN no. However, till date despite several efforts the respondent complainant failed to furnish the correct particulars of his PAN no. which clearly goes to show the respondent had malafide intention to seek further refund in the matter despite the fact on verification that refund order bearing no. 1735047 for Rs.25,875/- issued on 02.02.2008 stand encashed by Mr D Satyanarayan on 29.02.2008 as per records of the petitioner 7. Hence, petitioner has prayed due to the aforesaid reasons, the delay of 113 days in filing the revision petition may be condoned. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the records. 9. It is well settled that ufficient causefor condonation of delay in each case is a question of fact. 10. In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed that: t 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 Section 5. If ufficient causeis not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If ufficient causeis 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 bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry 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. 11. In R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed that: e 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 12. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that: t 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 12. As per the petitioner case, the copy of the impugned order was received on 03.06.2011. No dates or reasons have been why it took so much time to get the record from the counsel representing the petitioner at the Consumer Forum at Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh and from the counsel representing before the State Commission, Hyderabad. The petitioner himself was based in Hyderabad. There is no detailed explanation as to why it took 203 days for filing the revision petition. 13. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds have been made out for condoning the delay of 113 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay, under these circumstances, is not maintainable and the present revision petition being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of onsumer Welfare Fundas per Rule 10 A of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 within four weeks from today. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till its realisation.