The Complainant had purchased four tyres and tubes for a sum of Rs.52,000/-, out of which one tyre had burst and it was found that the tyres which had been supplied were of inferior quality.  The District Forum ordered payment of Rs.13,000/- as cost of one tyre which had burst.  Besides that, the District Forum had ordered a sum of Rs.1784/- towards survey fees,  Rs.2,000/- towards mental torture and Rs.3,000/- towards expenses.    Total amount ordered to be paid was Rs.19,784/-.  This order was challenged by the present Petitioner before the State Commission.  The appeal was filed with a delay of 312 days and the explanation given was administrative reasons.  This explanation was rightly rejected by the State Commission.  The appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay.  The State Commission also observed that the District Forum had noted that the tyres and tube which were fitted to the tractor were  of inferior quality and  the judgement seems to be just and there is no necessity to interfere in it.

          We have gone through the condonation application which was filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission.  The explanation for delay is found in paragraphs –3 and 4 which reads as under;-

3.                 “It is submitted that thereafter the order was sent to the concerned division of the appellant to decide on  the future course of action. It is submitted that thereafter the appellant sought opinion of their undersigned counsel. It is submitted that in order to able to give an opinion in this regard, the undersigned counsel had to get all  the documents including the order translated since  the same were in Gujarati.  It is submitted that the translator took fifteen days to translate all the documents from Gujarati to English.  That thereafter the undersigned counsel examined the impugned order.  The draft

appeal was prepared by the counsel thereafter sent again to the concerned division of the appellant for approval. The said draft was then forwarded to the office of the appellant in Singapore for deciding the future course of action.

4.                 Thereafter the draft appeal was vetted at Singapore and the vetted draft was then sent to the undersigned counsel at Delhi on 23.7.2009. The vetted draft was once again perused and the final draft was reforwarded to the office of the appellant in Singapore for approval.”

The above explanation by no stretch of imagination can be considered as sufficient to condone delay  of 312 days.  Except for general explanation, no details of dates have been given about processing of the matter.  Such explanation obviously could not be accepted and was rightly rejected by the State Commission.  Accordingly, revision is liable to be dismissed on  this count alone.

Even on merits, there is no case for interference  in as much as the District Forum  found that the tyre, in question, had burst within a short duration of 45 days on account of poor quality product and even after the request of the Complainant to replace the tyre and also legal notice, the tyre was not replaced.  Therefore, even on merits, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.