Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission as barred by limitation.  There was a delay of 47 days in filing the Appeal and the only reason given for condonation of delay was that the file was sent to the head-office of the petitioner at Mumbai and only after receipt of the directions from the head-office, the counsel for the petitioner was contacted, who filed the appeal within no time.  The date on which the petitioner sent copy of the appeal to the head-office and the date on which the head-office gave directions to file the appeal, have not been mentioned.  Day-to-day explanation for the delay had not been given.  Taking all these facts into consideration, the State Commission did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

          Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, has filed this Revision Petition with a further delay of 65 days.  The reason given for the delayed filing of the Revision Petition is the same as had been given before the State Commission.   Delay of each day has not been explained.  The petitioner is committing the default repeatedly and is, therefore, not entitled to get the delay condoned at both the stages.  The consumer fora have to decide the cases within a time-frame prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act.  Repeated indulgence of condonation of delay, under the circumstances, cannot be given to the petitioner.

          We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently, Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.