ORDER JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER In this revision petition filed by the petitioner , there is challenge to order dated 28.5.2009, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short ‘State Commission’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant purchased a mini four wheeler No.HR-38K-5372 from respondent no.2/opposite party no.1 on 18.8.2004. Respondent no.2 is the authorized dealer of petitioner/opposite party no.2 who is manufacturer company of the said four wheeler. Respondent no.2 has given the warranty/guarantee for six months from the date of sale of the vehicle or 8,000 kilometer whichever is earlier. The vehicle was duly got insured. It is further stated that respondent no.1 has purchased the said vehicle from respondent no.2 from Balladgarh but they have intentionally issued the receipt of their head office at Gurgaon with malafide intention and further service book has not been supplied to the respondent no.1, even on demand. 3. Respondent no.1 has also alleged that at the time of first service i.e. within 15 days from the date of purchase, due to acute manufacturing defect, the gear box of the said vehicle started leaking. There was no pick-up in the vehicle and hand break stopped working and further there was leakaging in the brake, cross in the main shaft has been damaged, besides that there were other manufacturing defects in the vehicle. In these circumstances, respondent no.1 has claimed that petitioner and respondent no.2 are liable to take back the defective vehicle and to refund the amount of Rs.2,26,760/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its purchase and further Rs.1 lakh on account of damages, mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses. 4. The District Forum issued notice of the complaint to the petitioner as well as respondent no.2. However, petitioner did not appear before it despite service and therefore was proceeded ex-parte. 5. Respondent no.2 appeared before the District Forum but did not file the written statement. On subsequent dates he did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. 6. Vide order dated 28.12.2005, District Forum allowed the complaint of respondent no.1 and passed the following order ; “The respondents are ordered to pay Rs.2,26,760/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant. Respondent no.2 appeared before the District Forum but did not file the written statement. On subsequent dates he did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. 6. Vide order dated 28.12.2005, District Forum allowed the complaint of respondent no.1 and passed the following order ; “The respondents are ordered to pay Rs.2,26,760/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant. The complainant is directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the respondent i.e. either to respondent no.1 or to respondent no.2 immediately after receiving the payment. Both the acts are to be complied with simultaneously. Since sufficient rate of interest has been awarded, therefore, there is no order as to mental agony and litigation expenses.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of District forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order as there was delay of 796 days in filing of the appeal. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that address of the petitioner mentioned in the complaint is not the correct address and as such no proper notice has been served on the petitioner. Thus, petitioner had no opportunity to appear and defend himself before the District forum. Petitioner acquired knowledge of the order of District Forum only in November, 2007and thereafter on 22.11.2007, petitioner applied and obtained the certified copy of the order and if the period is counted from this date when the petitioner acquired the knowledge of the order, then there is no delay. State Commission did not consider this point and committed serious error in dismissing the appeal by holding that there is delay of 796 days. 9. It is also contended that the onus of proving the alleged defects in the vehicle was upon respondent no.1, which he has failed to discharge. Admittedly, no expert evidence has been produced by respondent no.1 to prove the nature of the defects and as such respondent no.1 had no case before the District Forum. 10. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that there is no illegality in the order passed by the State Commission. There is delay of 796 days which has not been explained by the petitioner. Since, there was no ground for condonation of delay, State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 11. There is delay of 796 days which has not been explained by the petitioner. Since, there was no ground for condonation of delay, State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 11. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, State Commission in its impugned order has observed ;“No doubt, liberal approach is expected from the Court while dealing with the question of condonation of delay, but the fact cannot be ignored that law of limitation still exists in the statutes book and its provisions cannot be given go by in a casual manner. Each case has to be dealt keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. A heavy duty is cast upon the Court to keep in mind whether a valuable right has accrued to the respondent due to non-filing of the appeal in time and in case any valuable right has accrued, the Court should be reluctant to condone the delay. It is well settled principle of law that the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for condonation of delay should not be taken lightly. It is well settled that each and every day delay has to be explained while seeking condonation of delay. The observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Union of India Vs. Vijay Laxmi 2006 (1) CPC 61 (NC), cannot be given to by while dealing with the prayer made in the application for condonation of delay.Further, in case titled K.Thillainayakam (DR.) Vs. Adurai City Municipal Corporation reported in “IV (2008) CPJ 108 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under :- “Delayed by 412 days – State Commission has no power to review its order – Still review filed – period during which review remained pending, not to be excluded for computation of limitation – Sufficient cause for delay not shown – Delay not condoned.”The ratio of the cases (supra) fully applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.Having taken into consideration, the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, we feel that the appellant has failed to establish ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. It is not a delay for a week or month, rather it is delay of 796 days, therefore, the valuable right which has accrued to the respondent – complainant on account of non-filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation cannot be ignored. It is not a delay for a week or month, rather it is delay of 796 days, therefore, the valuable right which has accrued to the respondent – complainant on account of non-filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation cannot be ignored. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.” 12.Taking up the point with regard to condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before the State Commission, petitioner made following averments in its application for condonatio of delay ;1. That the appellant company has preferred an appeal against the impugned order of the District Forum in case titled Jagbir Sharma Vs. Sanmati Motors and Arjun Motors and the impugned order is dated 28.12.2005 in complaint case titled 831/2004 and the next date in the Execution proceeding is …..4.2008.2. That the appellant company had the knowledge of the said case when they received a certified copy of the order on 22.11.2007 and came to know that the order of District Forum in the complaint case filed by the present respondent herein appeal as an ex-parte order and the execution proceedings are also going on against the appellant company.3. That the appellant company submits before the Hon’ble State Commission that there is delay in filing the present appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission because firstly the knowledge arose of the order on 22.11.2007 and the appellant company submit that the sister concern i.e. M/s Sipani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., is facing crises and is under liquidation and the official liquidator has been appointed and many of the postal receipts/dak is lost and the necessary steps could not been taken by the appellant company at a proper time within a stipulated period of 30 days and it is on account of this reason that no appeal could be filed before the State Commission, thus, the delay for filing the appeal before the State Commission be condoned in the interest of justice.” 13.The primary and important question involved in the present proceedings to be seen is as to on which date the petitioner got the knowledge of the order of District Forum and from which date the limitation will start running. 14.As per application for condonation of delay, the case of petitioner is;“That the appellant company had the knowledge of the said case when they received a certified copy of the order on 22.11.2007.” 15.Thus, as per above averments, petitioner got the knowledge of the order of District Forum on 22.11.2007. 16.However, in the grounds challenging the impugned order before this Commission, petitioner took a summersault and introduced a new story about the date of knowledge stating that ;“The petitioner acquired knowledge of the impugned order of the District Forum only in November, 2007 and immediately on 22.11.2007, the petitioner has applied for and obtained the certified copy of the order.” 17.So, petitioner himself is taking contradictory pleas with regard to the knowledge of the order of the District Forum. On the one hand, it is stated that petitioner acquired the knowledge of the order of District Forum only in November, 2007 and immediately on 22.11.2007, petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order. 18.On the other hand, petitioner states that it had the knowledge of the said case when they received a certified copy of the order on 22.11.2007. 19.Even assuming for the arguments sake that petitioner got the knowledge of order of District Forum in November, 2007, then also there is no reasonable explanation as to why the appeal was filed before the State Commission on 2.4.2008, that is, much beyond the period of limitation. Though, petitioner took the plea that after getting the knowledge of the order on 22.11.2007, appeal could not be filed in time, since its sister concern is under liquidation. However, no documents with regard to the liquidation of sister concern have been filed. 20.It is well settled that “sufficient cause” for non appearance in each case, is a question of fact. Delhi High Court in New Bank of India Vs. M/s Marvels (India): 93 (2001) DLT 558, has held; “No doubt the words “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. However, when it is found that the applicants were most negligent in defending the case and their non-action and want of bonafide are clearly imputable, the Court would not help such a party. M/s Marvels (India): 93 (2001) DLT 558, has held; “No doubt the words “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. However, when it is found that the applicants were most negligent in defending the case and their non-action and want of bonafide are clearly imputable, the Court would not help such a party. After all “sufficient cause” is an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guide-lines can be given and Court has to decide on the facts of each case as to whether the defendant who has suffered ex-parte decree has been able to satisfactorily show sufficient cause for non- appearance and in examining this aspect cumulative effect of all the relevant factors is to be seen.” 21.In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 22.Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that; “There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.” 23.In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.” 23.In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” 24.As no reasonable explanation for delay in filing the appeal having been given, we hold that no sufficient cause nor any cogent reason has been shown which entitles the petitioner to have the delay of 796 days condoned. 25.Even on merits, petitioner has no case in view of the following findings of the District Forum in which it has been held ; “Taking into consideration, the pleadings of the complainant, evidence adduced by the complainant and further hearing the submission of the complainant, the Forum is of the opinion that the vehicle in question has inherent defect in it and it was troubling since its purchase. The complainant has also got financed some amount from some financial company and ultimately he was forced to pay an amount of Rs.2,26,760/- to the financial company. Since the evidence of the complainant has not been rebutted, therefore, the Forum has no other alternative except to accept the pleadings of the complainant. The evidence adduced by the complainant. The Forum is of the opinion that the vehicle in question could not be brought in operation from the very beginning due to various defects as mentioned in the complaint and further in the evidence, due services were also not rendered by the respondents for removing the defects in the vehicle. The Forum is, therefore, of the opinion that the defects pleaded in the complaint are taken as it is, meaning thereby the vehicle in question is totally defective. The deficiency in service of the respondent is, therefore, clearly by proved on the ground that the vehicle which was sold by the respondent to the complainant was defective. Hence, the Forum is of the opinion that the respondent s are liable to refund the whole amount, which the complainant has paid to the respondents and further to the financer. The deficiency in service of the respondent is, therefore, clearly by proved on the ground that the vehicle which was sold by the respondent to the complainant was defective. Hence, the Forum is of the opinion that the respondent s are liable to refund the whole amount, which the complainant has paid to the respondents and further to the financer. The complainant has been harassed very much, therefore, he is also entitled to charge on account of mental agony and litigation expenses. The complaint of the complainant, therefore, succeeds.” 26.It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. 27.Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ;“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.” 28.It is also well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants, who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence goes on filing meritless petitions in different foras. 29.Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Act. 29.Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Act. Since, two fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Thus, present petition is hereby, dismissed with punitive costs of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only). 30.Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs of Rs.30,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within six weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. 31.Order on written explanation dated 19.7.2011, of the Registrar of this Commission, has been passed separately. 32.List on 30th May, 2012 for compliance.