1.     This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Air India Ltd., Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint, against the order dated 06.05.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. CC/16/215.  By the impugned order, while posting the matter to 25.08.2016 for filing affidavit of evidence by the Complainant, the State Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Parties, including the Appellant herein, as the said parties remained unrepresented, despite service.

2.       The Appellant had floated a Scheme to sell different types of flats to its employees at Navi Mumbai.  While the said flats were to be constructed by Opposite Party No.2, notice as regards the said Scheme was issued by the Appellant on 06.01.2005.  The Complainant was an employee of the Appellant, who had superannuated from the service on 30.06.2006.  He had applied for a flat in the said Scheme and was allotted a Type-B Flat by the Appellant.  Since the Opposite Parties did not accept the balance payment and thereby restrained the Complainant from taking possession of the said flat, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite Parties on several counts, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, praying for reliefs, mentioned in the Complaint. 

3.       As noted above, the Complaint is pending before the State Commission and the present Appeal is directed against the aforesaid interlocutory order, whereby the State Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Parties.

4.       It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 233 days in filing the same.  An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Appeal.  In the said Application, following explanation has been furnished:

“2.      That the delay caused in filing the captioned Appeal, which is due to the reasons detailed herein below:-

a.       That the office of the counsel of the Appellant received the copy of the impugned order on 16.09.2016 from the Registry of State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai.

b.       That the said order was forwarded to the concerned official of Appellant, which is a huge organisation, governed by the Company Law, with various departments having a hierarchy and detailed laid down procedure for decision making based on financial and administrative powers assigned to distinct departments.  Therefore, the decision to proceed against the impugned order of the Hon’ble State Commission got delayed.

c.       That the case matter of the present appeal originally pertains to the regional office of the Appellant (Mumbai) but since, the appeal had to be filed before this Hon’ble National Commission therefore, the approval from the Head Office of the Appellant which is at Delhi was also required, which also consumed certain amount of time.

6.       That the Appellant being a public body has to follow a strict and rigorous procedure for obtaining approvals and compliances, which is a time consuming procedure.

7.       That the copy of the Complaint including other documents was received from Mumbai and it is only when the counsel of the Appellant at Delhi had obtained the brief that he proceeded to draft the Appeal.

8.       That the concerned advocate prepared the draft of the Appeal and sent the same back for factual verifications, inputs, approvals and signatures.”

5.       It is trite that discretion to condone delay has to be exercised judiciously, based on facts and circumstances of each case.  It is equally well settled that when a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be scrupulously followed.  An unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty and, therefore, limitation prevents deprivation of what one may have acquired.  Bearing in mind these broad principles, we are of the opinion that the explanation furnished by the Appellant is vague to the core and wholly unsatisfactory.        

6.       Though the office has reported that after receipt of copy of the impugned order on 16.09.2016, there is a delay of 233 days in filing the present Appeal but factually it is incorrect.  From a perusal of Memo of the Appeal, it is evident that on 05.04.2016 while admitting the Complaint and posting the matter to 06.05.2016, the State Commission had issued notice to the Opposite Parties.  Admittedly, the said notice had been received by an officer of the Appellant but it remained unrepresented before the State Commission on the said date, when the State Commission proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Parties.  We fail to fathom any reason, why the Appellant took over four months in obtaining a copy of the impugned order, on 16.09.2016, and consequently there would be much more delay than what has been reported by the office.  It is true that the Appellant is a huge organization and may have to follow certain administrative procedures for obtaining approvals etc. but all this exercise has to be completed within the period of limitation prescribed in the Act, which does not permit any extra/additional time for the Public Authorities/Corporations, like the Appellant herein.  The present Appeal is barred by limitation by almost one year and the Application, seeking condonation thereof, is conspicuously silent with respect to date-wise developments taking place in the matter, and therefore, it is not possible to identify the delinquent officer, who was not even aware of the period of limitation.  In the absence of the said details, it can safely be inferred that even after receipt of the notice, issued by the State Commission on 05.04.2016, and on receipt of a copy of the impugned order on 16.09.2016, the Appellant did not show any sense of seriousness in pursuing the matter expeditiously to ensure that the Appeal was filed within time.  Such casual and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563.   We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Appellant has failed to make out any cause, much less a ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of inordinate delay of almost one year in filing the Appeal. 

7.       Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.