At the outset, it is noticed that there is delay in filing this revision petition. In the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that due to administrative reasons, the revision petition could not be filed earlier and there has occurred delay in filing the revision petition but the delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and hence the same may be condoned. There is no indication about the period of delay in the condonation application. It is however, seen from the note of the Registry that the impugned order was received by the petitioner on 21.9.2010 and after adjusting the period prescribed for filing of the revision petition, there is delay of 29 days in filing the present revision petition. Since no convincing reason or explanation has been given for the delay in question except the vague statement about administrative reasons for condoning the delay, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. 

 

2.         Coming to the merits, it is seen that the revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 7.9.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (‘State Commission’ for short) in First Appeal No. 103 of 2009 against the order of the District Forum dated 21.11.2008. By its impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, the State Commission has given the following reasons in support of its order:-

“3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. The order impugned was challenged by the complainant vide First Appeal No.270 of 2008 and in which the postal department was made the respondents. The order under challenge was the same dated 21.11.2008 and the appeal had been disposed of on merit by order dated 8.5.2009, which has become final in view of the provision of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the reason that the postal department has not preferred any revision petition against the order dated 8.5.2009, before the Hon’ble National Commission. In view of that matter, the postal department was legally barred from challenging the propriety and legality of the order impugned dated 21.11.2008. Even otherwise, the State Commission is not empowered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to review its order and on that account also, the appeal filed by the postal department is not legally maintainable. However, considering the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant volunteers that on behalf of the complainant, an indemnity bond shall be filed with the postal department before receiving the maturity amount of the two Kisan Vikas Patras (Rs.20,000/-) with interest @ 8% p.a., as awarded by the District Forum vide order dated 21.11.2008. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 

 

3.         We agree with the view taken by the State Commission while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner vide its impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that an appeal had been filed against the same order of the District Forum passed on 21.11.2008 and that appeal had earlier been disposed of on merit by State Commission’s order dated 8.5.2009 which was not challenged and hence became final. This being the undisputed factual position as reflected in the impugned order, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and hence do not see any reason to interfere with it. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed at the threshold both on the grounds of limitation and on merits.