RAM KISHAN Vs. UHBVNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is delay of 112 days in filing this revision petition. The delay is explained in Para Nos. 3 and 4 of the application, which are reproduced as follows: -

(2.) THE delay explained in para No.3 of the application does not constitute sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The petitioner became aware of the fact that the order was passed by the State Commission 16.12.2011. But he has not disclosed when did he receive the free copy. If the delay is counted from 16.12.2011, then there is delay of 250 days. When the petitioner was aware that the order was passed he should have got the free copy there and then itself. It was not disclosed that when the Advocate got the copy and why there was delay in delivering the copy to the complainant by the counsel. The petitioner took two months to make his decision that revision petition should be filed. The question of poverty does not come to rescue of the petitioner. In this country, most of the people are poor. This cannot be said to be a good ground for condoning the delay.

(3.) THIS view stands get emboldened by the following authorities. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.