Review Application no. 414 of 2023 (for review) In Chamber 1. This review application has been filed against the order dated 07.07.2023 in CC no. 447 of 2020. The review application was filed on 15.11.2023 after a delay of 88 days. 2. Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for an appeal to be filed against an order of the Commission within 30 days. This position has been retained under section 51 (1) in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In the instant case, the delay is undisputedly of 88 days as per the application seeking condonation of delay filed along with this review application. IA no.14953 of 2023 seeks condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reasons stated therein are that ‘the opposite party took time to arrange the relevant information and several documents before preparing the review application”. 3. Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under: 24 A. Limitation period.—(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint as this such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay. 4. In Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “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.” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not. The court has held as under: "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.” 6. While dealing with the matters under the Act, it has been held in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. The court has held as under: “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 Fora." 7. In the case of State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), this Court, while dealing with the same provision, has held: 11. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24 A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. 12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. [ Emphasis added ] 8. The delay of 88 days in filing the review application has not been explained sufficiently as the opposite party has merely stated it was despite ‘best efforts’. The reasons stated that the opposite party was arranging for information and going through several documents and preparing the review application cannot be a ground for seeking condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act which stands on a different pedestal, in view of the provision of Section 24 A and the objective of the Act to provide expeditious disposal of the Consumer disputes. The review applicant is a corporate entity with a legal wing which is expected to act with due diligence. Therefore, the cause shown is not sufficient. IA no. 14952 of 2023 is therefore, dismissed. Consequently the review application is also dismissed as being barred by limitation under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. | 
