KRISHNA Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula ( 'State Commission ' for short) by which the State Commission allowed First Appeal No.3469 of 2001 filed by the respondent / opposite party and set aside the order dated 8.8.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari.

(2.) THERE is delay in filing this revision petition for which the petitioner has filed I.A. No.171 of 2013 praying for condonation of the delay. There is no indication about the period of delay in the application of the petitioner and the space regarding the number of days of delay has been left blank. Since the impugned order was passed on 4.8.2009 and the same was received by the petitioner on 18.8.2009 and yet the revision petition came to be filed by the petitioner on 9.1.2013, it is seen that there is delay of 1150 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

(3.) WE have considered the application of the petitioner for the condonation of delay. The reasons and the explanation put forth by the petitioner are general and vague. Admittedly, no action has been taken by the petitioner against the Advocate who is alleged to have kept her in the dark and thereby misled her regarding the decision of the State Commission. According to the petitioner, the free copy of the impugned order had been supplied to the parties/counsel on 18.8.2009. Without specifically denying the knowledge about or the receipt of the free copy of the impugned order supplied by the Commission, it is simply stated that the certified copy of the impugned order was not received by her from her counsel. We are unable to accept this story which appears to have been cooked up by the petitioner as an afterthought to justify such a long and inordinate delay of about three years in filing the petition.