Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  There is a delay of 272 days in filing the revision petition for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to specific reasons,  in that initially his counsel at Panchkula failed to extend full cooperation in the matter and subsequently contacting a counsel at Delhi and misplacement of the documents by the courier company added to the delay.

2.      Neither the learned counsel nor the application filed for condonation of delay provide any details with regard to the time when the local counsel was approached and if any complaint against him was filed before the Bar Counsel for his indifferent behaviour, neither has any details been stated with regard to the contact established with a counsel at Delhi, nor details with regard to the courier company who is alleged to have misplaced the papers / documents have been given. 

3.       The explanation offered, in the view of this Commission, does not constitute sufficient cause so as to take a judicial view in favour of the petitioner, especially when there is a gross delay of 272 days which is over and above the 90 days statutorily provided for filing a revision petition under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Regulations.     The law on the subject of condonation of delay by now stands fully settled and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Versus B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) has held that the expression “shall not admit a complaint” occurring in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a legislative command and has to be construed strictly unless sufficient cause is shown.  The facts of the case do not make out a case of sufficient cause in its favour and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.