The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing an appeal, as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

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 8.6.2000, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2627/2000 - entitled Shri Chander Prakash v. Pitampura Leasing and Housing Finance Limited.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Shri Chander Prakash had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had purchased a bus, bearing Registration No. DL-1P-0031. It was stated that the appellant got the same financed from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the appellant, Shri Chander Prakash that the amount of loan taken by the appellant for the purpose of financing the purchase of the above said bus, amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- along with interest was repayable in 17 equal monthly instalments, each of Rs. 8,667/-, commencing w.e.f. 10.7.1999. It was stated that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,84,567/- towards payment of instalments to the respondent but could not pay a few instalments in time as a result of which the respondent took away the bus in question from the possession of the appellant on 21.1.2000 without any information or notice to the appellant. It was stated that thereafter the respondent returned the vehicle to the appellant on 29.2.2000. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum was that as a result of the above illegal act on the part of the respondent, i.e., retaining the vehicle in question unauthorizedly and illegally from 21.1.2000 to 29.2.2000, the appellant suffered monitory loss. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum it was prayed that the respondent be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 41,567/- alleged to have been extracted by the respondent illegally from the appellant together with interest. The appellant had also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,17,000/- on account of loss of income, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and another sum of Rs. 9,000/- as cost of litigation.

3. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent it was stated that an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- and not Rs. 1,20,000/- as alleged was financed by the respondent to the appellant for the purpose of purchasing the bus. It was stated that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was paid to the appellant vide Cheque No. 69058 dated 9.7.1999 and another amount of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to the appellant for the above said purchase vide Cheque No. 69052 of the same date. It was stated that the appellant never made payments of instalments in time and paid the instalments much after the due date. It was stated that even some of the cheques issued by the appellant towards payment of instalments were returned unpaid and as the appellant failed to deposit the instalments, the bus in question was handed over by the appellant to the respondent with the request that he would clear the balance amount due and payable to the respondent and would have the bus released. It was stated that the appellant on 27.2.2000 deposited a sum of Rs. 93,000/- vide Receipt No. 3628 and thereafter the bus was immediately handed over to the appellant. It was stated that thereafter on 29.2.2000, the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- was deposited by the appellant and a no objection certificate was issued by the respondent to the appellant in respect of the above said bus. The allegation that the appellant had paid excess amount has been specifically denied. The allegation that a sum of Rs. 9,000/- in cash was lying in the vehicle in addition to tripal, tools, equipment and accessories etc., was also specifically de