The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 4.4.2019, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner on the ground that the delay of 85 days in filing the Appeal has not been sufficiently explained.  Mr.Relan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the Application seeking condonation of delay filed before the State Commission and submitted that since the cause has sufficiently been explained and the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay of 85 days in filing the Appeal, instead of taking technical view in the matter and dismissing the Appeal.  The submission is wholly misconceived.  In the Application seeking condonation of delay filed before the State Commission, which contains 7 paragraphs, only the fourth paragraph is relevant in which the explanation has been given as to why the delay has occurred.  The relevant portion of Para-4 of the said Application is reproduced below :

“That it is submitted that the Appellant lost substantial time in seeking approval of the Competent Authority required for filing the Appeal.  It is submitted that as per internal procedures, various approvals have to be taken before filing of an Appeal including an approval for preparation of the Demand Draft also.”

        The State Commission had considered the explanation given by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay and has dealt with it in the impugned order.  Relevant portion of Para-9 of the impugned order is reproduced below for ready reference :

“The present appeal has been filed along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the huge delay of 85 days in filing the appeal.  However, no cogent reasons and grounds have come forward to explain the huge delay of 85 days in filing the Appeal.  There is also no explanation as to what action was taken upon the case after receiving the certified copy of the order on 6.12.2018.  Therefore, no explanation is given for the lapse of 85 days in filing the appeal, which is already delayed by much long time.  Chain of sequence of events, has not been described in order to co-relate the various events which allegedly took place from time to time.  Even the details of the dealing assistant and any explanation for not putting the file has been brought on the record.  The application has been filed in a casual manner, without disclosing the detailed explanation about the delay.  The applicant has adopted a careless and casual approach in filing the application.  The law is settled that the delay can be condoned when it has been properly explained, but the delay due to casual approach cannot be condoned, at the asking of the applicant.”

        From a perusal of the submissions made in the Application, which have been reproduced above, as also findings recorded by the State Commission, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission was perfectly justified in rejecting the Application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that no reasonable explanation has been given except stating that substantial time was spent for seeking approval from the Competent Authority.  Nothing else has been stated in the Application, neither the date, time or period has been mentioned as to when the file was sent to the Competent Authority and when the Competent Authority took the decision in the matter to file the Appeal.  We are of the considered opinion that the State Commission was perfectly justified in declining to condone the delay.

        In view of the above, the impugned order does not require interference in exercise of our Revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.