Demonstration of 'sufficient cause' for filing an appeal beyond the prescribed period is crucial for its consideration by the court.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 9.1.2003, passed by District Forum, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/654/2001 — entitled Shri Darshan Lal Jain v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly, stated, are that the appellant Shri Darshan Lal Jain had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that he had booked two vehicles for his ailing wife who was bed ridden and had made payment for the same to the respondent. It was stated that later on he advised the respondent that order for one vehicle may be cancelled and the amount be refunded to him. It was stated that later on again he wrote to the respondent to refund the amount of both the vehicles as his ailing wife, for whom he had booked the vehicles had expired in between. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint, before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that the respondent had not refunded the amount in question to him despite repeated requests. In the complaint, filed by him before the District Forum, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to refund the amount in question to him along with damages.

3. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was barred by time and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

5. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, a person, aggrieved by an order, made by the District Forum, can prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. However, proviso to Section 15 of the Act provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above said period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the same within the above said period. The words ‘sufficient cause’, occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ‘sufficient cause’, though deserves to receive a liberal interpretation, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though, no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ‘sufficient cause’ in a given case, yet, again, as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ‘sufficient cause’. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied.

6. Admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days because the order being impugned in the present proceedings was passed by the learned District Forum on 9.1.2003 and the present appeal has been filed by the appellant on 5.4.2003. Therefore, the question requiring consideration at the very threshold is as to whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time within the meaning of proviso to Section 15 of the Act.

7. The appellant, along with the appeal has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for not filing the appeal in time has been stated in th