IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Settled proposition of law that when an Appeal/ Revision Petition/Complaint is barred by limitation and filed much beyond the period of limitation, forum or commission shall not give its findings on merits and can dismiss it.
(2) Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observation for applications seeking condonation of delay under Consumer Protection Act is that expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes shall be kept in mind so that object of the Act is not defeated.

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The Petitioners have challenged in the present Revision Petition, the order dated 08.12.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.140 of 2020.

2. The chronology of the events is that the Respondent/Complainant had filed a Complaint No.55 of 2018 before the District Forum. Vide Order dated 10.09.2019, the District Forum allowed the Complaint. The Petitioners thereafter filed an Appeal No.140 of 2020 against the order of the District Forum. Since this Appeal had been filed with a delay of 367 days, the Petitioners had also filed, along with their Appeal, a miscellaneous application no.748 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay of 367 days.

3. Vide the impugned order the said application of the Petitioners was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application and dismissal of the Appeal, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

4. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that they have a good case on merit and the State Commission has committed illegality and perversity and has acted in non-judicial manner, while dismissing their Appeal on merit. It is further argued that there were sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the said Appeal and therefore, dismissal of the application M.A. No.748 of 2020 is also not justifiable and the impugned order needs to be set aside. It is argued that in the application seeking condonation of delay the Petitioners had clearly stated that they had not received / lost / misplaced certified copies sent by the Forum through post to them and that they had applied for certified copy, after waiting for some time, on 21st January, 2020 which was prepared on 10th February, 2020. It is submitted that the Appeal could be filed only by 12th March, 2020. It is submitted that there were sufficient reasons which prevented the Petitioners from filing the Appeal within the limitation. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Suo Moto in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, has extended the period of limitation during the corona period. It is submitted that in view of this, the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay. Therefore, the dismissal of the Appeal on this ground is not justifiable and order is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel has also addressed the arguments on merit of the case at length.

5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments and have perused the file.

6. It is a settled proposition of law that when an Appeal or a Revision Petition or a complaint is barred by limitation and the forum is dismissing the said Complaint, Revision Petition or Appeal, on the ground that it had been filed beyond the period of limitation, it shall not give its findings on merit. The forum is required to refrain itself from dealing with the merit of the case. It is therefore unwarranted on the part of the State Commission to discuss at length the merit of the case of the Petitioners and thereby dismissing the Appeal on merit as well. Since such findings on the part of the State Commission are unwarranted, the same shall be scored out from the impugned Order.

7. The argument of learned Counsel that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay has to be judged in the light of principles of law governing condonation of delays. In this case there was a delay of 367 days in filing the Appeal before the State Commission. It is well settled proposition of law that the party who is seeking the condonation, has to show sufficient causes which prevented it from filing the appeal/revision within the period of limitation. Simply because the proposition of law governing limitation, harshly affects a person or a party, is not a ground for condoning the delay. The law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigor as prescribed by the statute. The forums have no choice but to enforce the law. A sufficient cause can be considered