Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—The sole grievance in this appeal filed against the order dated 19.2.2003 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh is that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the grounds mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint case. We find from perusal of the impugned order that the cause of action for filing the complaint has been taken as 23rd July, 2000,which is the date of maturity of the fixed deposit receipt. The complaint was filed on 5th of August, 2002. There was thus some delay in filing the appeal. The ground on which the delay was condoned, as would appear from perusal of para 3 of the order, is that the appellant was operated in the month of January, 2002, but he gave no explanation as to why the complaint was not filed between 23rd July, 2000 till the date of operation. It may be mentioned that the period of limitation of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action would expire on 22nd July, 2002. The period which was taken into consideration falls within the period of limitation of two years as prescribed under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter be referred as C.P. Act). It is well settled that the complainant is not required to explain the time taken in filing the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation of two years. The complainant is required under Section 24-A of the C.P. Act to explain the delay, which occurred after the expiry of period of limitation. There is no finding of the District Forum regarding the period that elapsed from the expiry of period of limitation of two years i.e. w.e.f. 23rd July, 2002 to 5th August, 2002. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, went wrong in holding that there was no justification for condonation of delay. Apart from this, a perusal of the application/affidavit annexed with the complaint seeking condonation of delay will go to show that the appellant made averment in para 4 of the affidavit dated 5th August, 2002 wherein he alleged that he suffered from typhoid fever and he could recover only in the last week of July, 2002. In para 5 he deposed that the delay was unintentional and bona fide. This affidavit of the appellant, Mr. Rohit Bansal was not controverted. The ground mentioned for condonation of delay, in our considered opinion, is sufficient. The complainant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation of two years. Apart from it, the provisions of the C.P. Act are consumer friendly and the C.P. Act has been enacted with a view to ensure better protection to the consumers.

2. Resultantly, the appeal has considerable merit and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint case is remanded to the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh for adjudication on merits and in accordance with law. The appellant is directed to appear before the District Forum on 10.6.2003.

Appeal allowed.

––