The challenge in this revision petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”) is to an order dated 06.10.2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal (for short, ‘‘the State Commission’’) in Appeal No.807/2008.  By the impugned order, allowing the consumer complaint, the State Commission has directed the petitioner company to pay to the complainant, respondent no.1 herein, a sum of `50,000/- as compensation along with litigation costs of `2000/- for deficiency in service

-3-

on their part on account of seizure of the financed tractor without proper notice to the complainant.                                         

               It is pointed out by the office that there is a delay of 58 days in filing this revision petition.  An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed, wherein the following explanation has been furnished.

                “The petitioner states the petitioner has received order of the State Commission on 15.10.2012 and the same has been prepared on 09.10.2012.  Because of the transfer of the Regional Manager (legal) some time has been taken to get approval for the filing of the Revision petition before this Hon’ble Commission from the head office situated at Mumbai.  Time has also been taken in the office of the Advocate of the petitioner in preparation of the present Revision petition as all the documents/annexures were in vernacular language and were needed to be translated in English language.”

               We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  In our opinion, the petitioner has failed to make out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of 58 days, which extra time is over and above the period of 90 days prescribed for filing the revision petition.  The explanation is

-4-

manifestly vague and far from satisfactory.  Bearing in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – (2011) 14 SCC 578, to the effect that entertainment of belated appeals and revisions would defeat the very object of the Act, namely, expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the said delay deserves to be condoned.  We may note that the complaint was filed sometime in the year 2007.   

               For the aforegoing reasons, we decline to condone the delay in filing the revision petition.  Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.