ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ministry of Railways against the order dated 24.09.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.487 of 2017.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum –VI, Distt. New Delhi, (in short ‘the District Forum’) bearing complaint No.639 of 2013 in respect of the deficiency against the petitioner herein/opposite party. The District Forum vide its order dated 03.04.2014 directed the petitioner herein/opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant.

3. The complainant preferred an appeal bearing no.556 of 2014 before the State Commission and the petitioner herein contested that appeal. The appeal was decided vide order dated 24.05.2017.

4. Petitioner also preferred appeal no.487 of 2017 before the State Commission. The State Commission has dismissed this appeal on the ground of limitation.

5. Hence the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel argued that the order of the District Forum awarding Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant is not justified at all and particularly the order relating to deduction of Rs.25,000/- from the salary of the concerned TTE. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein on the ground of limitation. The fact is that the petitioner herein was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum as the complainant had given wrong address of the opposite party. This point has been raised before the State Commission in appeal, however, the State Commission has not considered anything on merit and has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation only. The learned counsel argued that the delay has occurred because the petitioner herein was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum and therefore, the petitioner herein got the information of the order of the District Forum only when notice was issued in the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant. It is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner herein was already contesting the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant before the State Commission and therefore, no need was felt to file the appeal by the petitioner herein before the State Commission against the same impugned order of the District Forum. As the delay is bonafide and unintentional, the delay should have been condoned by the State Commission as the petitioner herein had merit in its appeal.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. Special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC):2017 1 CPR (SC) 304 as follows;

“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.”

8. Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:-

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedie