O R D E R (ORAL)

        Heard the Petitioner, who is appearing in person and perused the impugned order dated 28.5.2018, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) by which the First Appeal No.221/2018, preferred by the Petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the delay of more than 700 days in filing the Appeal has not been sufficiently explained.  The State Commission did not go into the merits of the matter, as the Appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay.  The Petitioner invited our attention to Para-13 of the Application filed before the State Commission seeking condonation of delay, which is reproduced below for ready reference :

“That the total period of delay for condonation as explained from Para 2 to para 13 is summarized as follows :

Para 2 Delay within Hon’ble CDRF-II beyond the control of petitioner                35 days

Para 4 Delay till receipt of order, beyond the control of Petitioner                     11 days

Para 9-10 Delay due to negotiation with Respondent & legal consultation   225 days

Para-11 Delay due to Petitioner being out of station                                         49 days

Para 12-13 Delay due to negotiation with senior staff of Respondent Bank  446 days

                  Petitioner has submitted that he had sufficiently explained the delay of 766 days in filing the Appeal and therefore, the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay.  As stated above, the delay explained by the Petitioner is (i) 35 days delay before the District Forum beyond his control; (ii) 11 days delay in receipt of the order beyond his control; (iii) 225 days delay on account of negotiation with Respondent and legal consultation; (iv) 49 days delay due to Petitioner being out of station and (v) 446 days delay due to negotiation with senior staff of Respondent bank.

                  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 30 days’ time from the date of receipt of the order of the District Forum is allowed to any person to file an Appeal before the State Commission and merely because the Petitioner was negotiating with the senior staff of the Respondent bank, which took almost 671 days, cannot be treated to be a sufficient reason to condone the delay.  We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the State Commission had rightly declined to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.  We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.