1.       This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Complainant, against the order dated 15.02.2011, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.38 of 2008.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Respondent herein, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, and set aside the order dated 27.09.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Coimbatore (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 61 of 2007.  By the said order, the District Forum, while holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent in not returning the sale deed dated 11.11.1983, which had been pledged with it as collateral security against the loan taken by the Complainant, had allowed the Complaint and consequently directed it to trace and handover the said sale deed to the Complainant or otherwise pay to him a sum of ₹2000/- as compensation, ₹5000/- towards mental agony and ₹1000/- as litigation costs.  

2.       Now, on dismissal of his Complaint by the State Commission in the Appeal, preferred by the Respondent, the Complainant is before us in this Revision  Petition.         

3.       It is pointed out by the Office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 1633 days in filing the same.  An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraph-3 of the said Application, the Petitioner has furnished the following explanation:

“3.      It is submitted that due to old age and suffering from Blood Pressure and Diabetes, the Petitioner has been advised not to travel long distance.  The Petitioner has met his Counsel on 15.2.16 and given instructions to file Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission.  Thus there is a delay of 1798 days in preferring the Revision Petition, which is neither willful nor wanton and was beyond the Petitioner’s control.”

4.       We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.    

5.       In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory.  On 15.02.2011, when the Petitioner was duly represented by his Counsel before the State Commission, the State Commission had passed the impugned order and, as is apparent from a perusal of the said order, the free certified copy thereof had been delivered/dispatched to the Petitioner on 01.06.2011.  Yet, the Revision Petition, required to be filed within a period of 90 days from the said date, as provided under Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, has been filed only on 18.02.2016, with a huge delay of 1633 days.  The said delay is sought to be explained on the specious plea that the Petitioner was suffering with Blood Pressure and Diabetes, on account of which he had been advised not to travel long distance, and it was only on 15.02.2016 that he instructed his Counsel to file the Revision Petition before this Commission.  While the plea of ailment of the Petitioner for such a long period is not supported by any medical record, his indifferent attitude towards the case gets compounded by the fact that though he was represented before the State Commission on 15.02.2011, when the impugned order had been passed, he took exactly five years in deciding the future course of action, to be adopted in the matter, and instructing his Counsel to file the Revision Petition.  Bearing in mind the limited period available for filing the Revision Petition, the Petitioner was expected to take a prompt action in this regard and in any case it was not expected from him to sleep over the matter for a period of five years.  We are convinced that the Petitioner was suffering from such serious ailment, which could have incapacitated him to instruct his Counsel to challenge the order, now sought to be impugned.  We are not at all convinced with the explanation furnished by the Petitioner and are of the view that he has been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause.  Accordingly, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1633 days in filing of the present Revision Petition, as the Petitioner has failed to make out a sufficient cause for its condonation.      

6.       Resultantly, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of delay.