ORDER

Samarendra Pratap Singh, President.—The instant appeal is directed against the order, dated 26.11.2013 passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Supaul in Complaint Case No.45 of 2012 by which the Opposite parties have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants, totaling Rs.75,000/-, within sixty days from the date of order, failing which they would be entitled to take recourse to remedy available under law for recovery of aforesaid amount.

2. A limitation petition has been filed for condonation of delay of almost 7 years 9 months in filing of the appeal. The appellants submit that they were not aware of the impugned order and as soon as they came to learn about the impugned order, dated 26.11.2013, the appeal was filed. In nut shell, appellants’ case is that the appeal was filed without much delay from the date of knowledge and as such the delay is condonable. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon a decision, dated 5.6.2020 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs The Central Bank of India & anr passed in Civil Appeal No.2514 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (c) No.30209/2017). Besides this, it was further contended that in case of State of Bihar & Ors Vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Ors, reported in 2000 (3) BLJR 1749, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that primary function of a court is to adjudicate a dispute between the parties and not to dismiss the case on technical ground of limitation, unless injury is caused to the other side.

3. We would now consider whether the appellants have made out a case for condonation of delay of about 7 years 9 months in filing of appeal.

4. The provision of filing of appeal is provided in section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as per which any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period forty-five days from the date of the order. The first proviso to the section provides for condonation of delay in appropriate case if the Commission is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the aforesaid period.

5. Section 41 along with its first proviso is quoted herein below:

“41. Appeal against order of District Commission. - Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period forty-five days from the date of the order.

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period”.

6. Thus as per section 41 of the Act, an appeal ought to be filed within 45 days from the date of order. However, the Commission may entertain an appeal even after expiry of 45 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within that period.

7. The instant complaint was filed in 2012 and the impugned order was passed on 26.11.2013. In the complaint, the Opposite parties not only appeared but filed written statement stating that electric connection had not been provided to the complainants and by mistake the electric bill had been issued and efforts are being made to correct the same.

8. Thus, we find that the appellants-Opposite parties were not only aware of the complaint case but had also filed written statement. The appellants have taken a ground that the General Manager, Revenue, NBPDCL came to learn about the impugned order from the Opposite parties on 13.9.2021, where after the appeal has been filed.

9. In our considered view the ground that the General Manager, Revenue, NBPDCL came to learn about the impugned order only on 13.9.2021 would not constitute sufficient cause for not filing of the appeal all these eight years, when the Opposite parties had participat