(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 25.06.2012 passed in Appeal No. 559 of 2011 by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission "), vide which the appeal filed by the respondents in this petition was allowed and the order dated 15.3.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram in consumer complaint No. 58/05 was reversed. The District Forum vide this order had allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant and ordered the respondents / opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/ - jointly and severally as compensation towards defects in the floor tiles purchased by the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation for mental agony together with cost of Rs. 2,000/ -. It has been alleged by the complainant that the floor tiles purchased by him from the respondents for use in the construction of the house by him were found to be defective. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
(2.) AT the time of preliminary hearing for deciding about admission of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain the delay of 156 days in filing the present petition. The counsel invited our attention to the application for condonation of delay filed along with the revision petition, saying that the impugned order was passed on 25.6.2012 by the State Commission and thereafter, the counsel for the complainant before the State Commission, obtained copy of the order in July, 2012 and informed the petitioner about the order in the third week of July, 2012. Thereafter, the complainant contacted a counsel at Delhi and sent all relevant documents to him on 30.7.2012 by courier. The complainant was always under this impression that the counsel at Delhi was taking necessary steps to file the revision petition. The complainant contacted the said counsel many times in the succeeding weeks. The said counsel told the complainant in September, 2012 that some documents were to be translated, but the petition shall be filed in the first week of October, 2012. However, the counsel took unusually long time in filing the petition and asked for the documents afresh. In the last week of January, 2013, he asked the complainant to send translated copy of some documents, which were in Malayalam language. The delay had occurred without any wilful default on the part of the complainant; hence the same should be condoned. We have examined the material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The application for condonation of delay mentions that the complainant was in regular contact with his counsel at Delhi and the delay occurred because the said counsel did not act promptly to file the revision petition. There is no affidavit filed on behalf of said counsel, which could corroborate the version of the complainant. Moreover, the delay in getting the documents translated is not a valid ground for late filing of the revision petition. It becomes clear from the version given in the application for condonation of delay that prompt efforts were not made to get the translation done. It is obvious that the petitioner has not been able to provide any cogent and convincing explanation for the inordinate delay of 156 days in filing the petition. The case law on the subject is very clear and the Hon 'ble Apex Court has also observed in a number of recent orders that unless there are valid and convincing ground for condonation of delay, the same should not be condoned. The Hon 'ble Apex Court observed in R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, as under:
(3.) BASED on the above discussion, there does not seem to be any valid ground for the condonation of delay and hence the application for condonation of delay is not allowed and consequently the revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.