There was a delay of 935 days in re-filing the appeal. State Commission dismissed the appeal as barred by time by recording the following reasons : “In view of the non-compliance of certain provisions of law, this office returned the appeal memorandum on 23.6.2000, on the following grounds : 1. FDR to be produced 2. Original order copy to be filed 3. Required number of copies of appeal memorandum any typed set to be filed 4. Vakalat to be signed by all the appellants giving 15 days time for representation. Within the said time, admittedly opposite parties/appellants, have not represented the appeal memorandum, and it was represented only on 24.1.2011, thereby causing unexplained delay of 935 days. None of the above said return could be described as unnecessary return or frivolous return. On the other hand, the mandate of law is not complied, since mandatory deposit was not paid, even vakalat not signed, thereby showing the presentation of appeal memorandum, itself defective. Therefore, the opp.party/appellant ought to have been more vigilant, though committed some deficiency in the initial stage, atleast in rectifying the same, at later point of time, which they failed, thereby making clear once again, that they have committed deficiency. We are fully aware of the facts, that a case should be disposed of on merit, and the technicality of delay should not come in the way of rendering justice, which principle cannot be extended to the present petitioner. The Area Manager of LIC has filed an affidavit, and our effort by going through line by line, ended fruitless to find out any sufficient reason, much less valid reason to condone the delay, satisfying Sec.15, proviso of the Consumer Protection Act, except the bare allegations, that the delay and occurred, in representing the appeal, which was neither willful nor wanton, reasons are not alleged, that has to be decided by this Commission, whether it is wanton or willful, for that no opportunity was given us also, in the affidavit no delay has been specified. Thus by going through the affidavit, we are unable to find out any number of days delay, even it is seriously opposed, under the above circumstances, we are unable to condone the extraordinary delay of 935 days. For the said reason, the petition is devoid of merits, and liable to be rejected/dismissed.” We concur with the view taken by the State Commission. There was an inordinate delay of 935 days in re-filing the appeal. Reason given by the Petitioner for condonation of delay was neither sufficient nor justified. Complaint can be filed within two years from the arising of the cause of action. Under the Consumer Protection Act, District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and, in case, some expert evidence is required to be led, then within 150 days. Where the statute has permitted only 30 days for filing the Appeal, the delay of nearly 3 years in re-filing the appeal, under the circumstances cannot be condoned. Supreme Court in a recent judgment, Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed 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 the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are 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 foras.” Dismissed. |
