This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhopal, against order dated 05.11.2011, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.580 of 2008.  By the impugned order, the State Commission, while observing the failure of the Appellant, Petitioner herein, in filing certain documents, despite several opportunities, has dismissed the said Appeal, filed against order dated 22.10.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short “the District Forum”).  The District Forum had allowed the complaint preferred by the Complainant, Respondent herein, and directed the Petitioner to either pay him the amount(s) of accounts no. MP/234/1484 and MP/1267/288 or furnish the details of the said accounts, within two months.  In addition to this, a compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs of Rs.1000/- were also awarded and for the period of default, if any, interest @ 10% was awarded.

          It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 789 days in filing the same.  Application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed alongwith the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 1 to 7 of the said application, the explanation furnished for the delay is as under:

“1.      That the present petition is arising out of the order dated 05-11-2011, passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal in Appeal No. 580/2008, filed by the petitioner, by way of which ld. State Commission dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

2.       That thereafter an application bearing MJC no. 142/2011 was filed before MPSCDRC, for restoration of appeal which was also dismissed by the Commission vide its order dated 08.02.2012.

3.       That thereafter petitioner’s Regional Office (Indore) filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court Bench Gwalior against the MPSCDRC order dated 08.02.2012 passed in MJC No. 142/2011 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 17.12.2013, with a direction to prefer appeal before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

4.       That vide letter 31-01-2014, APFC-Legal of Bhopal region requested RPFC-Delhi to file Revision Petition before this Commission along with briefs which were in Hindi language except the copy of the appeal filed before State Commission.

5.       That thereafter vide letter dated 11-2-2014 & 14-02-2014 regional office Gwalior and Bhopal respectively requested RPFC-Delhi to file Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission and the matter was assigned to panel advocate on 13-4-2014.

6.       That as the documents received from the department are in Hindi panel counsel requested the department to provide translated copies of the same vide mail dated 14-4-2014. 

7.       That as the three offices one at Gwalior, 2^nd one at Bhopal and Third one at Delhi are involved in decision making process this delay in filing the instant Revision Petition.”

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

          In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory.  Instead of approaching directly to this Commission, against the impugned order(s) of the State Commission, dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and also the restoration application, the Petitioner adopted an unusual course of action and filed a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench.  Even after dismissal of the Writ Petition by the High Court, vide its order dated 17.12.2013, the Petitioner took more than one month in approaching its local office at Delhi for filing the Revision Petition in this Commission.  The Petitioner’s local office also took two months in assigning the case to an Advocate for taking necessary action into the matter, for which no explanation is forthcoming.  Further, the Petitioner took some more time since the process of decision making at Petitioner’s end involved three different offices of the Petitioner.  The cumulative effect of all this was that the Revision Petition was filed before this Commission after about five months from the date of dismissal of the Writ Petition by the High Court.  The Petitioner does not seem to be vigilant in its conduct.  Even before the State Commission, despite several opportunities, neither the required documents were filed nor did anyone represent the Petitioner on 05.11.2011, when the impugned order was passed.  This is nothing but the sheer harassment of a consumer, who has been granted relief by the District Forum as far back as on 12.10.2007 and still he is being dragged into the matter.

          In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the Petitioner has been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting its cause.   

          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 while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 789 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.  Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.