GOLDEN MULTI SERVICES LTD Vs. BASANTI DEVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, "the State Commissin") dated 26.7.2011 whereby the appeal No.841/2008 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for non -prosecution, has filed this revision petition.

(2.) THE revision petition, however, has been filed with inordinate delay. Therefore, the petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that delay in filing of the revision petition is unintentional. Actually on coming to know about the dismissal of the appeal in default, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the impugned order. The State Commission, however, vide order dated 16.7.2013 dismissed the application in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr." (Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2001). It is contended that thereafter the petitioner applied for free copy which was supplied to him on 30.6.2014 and if the period of delay is computed from 30.6.2014, the delay is only to the extent of 269 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appeal has been dismissed without hearing. Therefore, in interest of justice delay in filing the revision petition be condoned ad revision petition be disposed of on merits. We do not find merit in this contention. The conduct of the petitioner per se is grossly negligent. Even if we accept that the period of delay from the date on which free copy of the order of the State Commission dated 16.7.2013 was received, then also there is a gross delay of 269 days for which no explanation what so ever has been given. Law on condonation of delay is well settled.

(3.) IN Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361, it has been observed;