JUDGMENT

Manojit Mandal, President.—This appeal was filed on 01/06/2022 challenging the impugned order No. 11 dated 31/01/2019 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata-I (North). Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed, wherein it was prayed as under:—

“the appellants prays for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal which is delayed about 1215 days.”

2. The condonation of delay was sought on the ground that the appellant No. 1 Somenath Banerjee is a cancer patient who suffers with the disease since 2018 and in the year 2019, the Learned Advocate intimated that complaint case was decided in the year 2019 but as none of the appellants approached him or contacted him, he could not intimate the fate of the complaint case. Thereafter, due to pandemic situation of Covid 19 commenced all over the world including India and due to lockdown declared by the Govt. of India, the movement of citizens of India became restricted.

3. To explain the delay, Mr Barun Prasad, Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant No. 1 was a cancer patient who suffered with the disease since 2018. The appellant No. 1 was unaware about his medical problem and suddenly in the year 2018 when he became sick Doctors advised certain tests. Then the appellants came to know about the disease and therefore was under total shock. He further submitted that appellant No. 1 was in constant treatment which was a rare one under different Doctors and was admitted in the hospital / nursing homes on several occasions repeatedly and continued chemotherapy since 2019. He further submitted that the appellant No. 1 till date is under constant treatment. He has further submitted that due to pandemic situation of Covid 19, the movement of the citizens in India became restricted and the Hon’ble Apex Court has waived the period of limitation. So, the application for condonation of delay should be allowed.

4. In support of his application Mr Barun Prasad, Learned Advocate has referred decisions reported in 2018 (4) CPR 224 (SC), 2017 (3) CPR 601 (NC), 2016(2) CPR 7 (NC), 2018(3) CPR 74 (NC) & 2019 (1) CPR 712 (NC).

5. Upon hearing the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and on perusal of the record, it appears to me that there are 3 appellants in this case. For the sake of arguments if it is presumed that the appellant No. 1 was ill but there were other 2 appellants. The said two appellants could take necessary steps for filing the appeal against the impugned order but the other two appellants did not take any steps for preferring the appeal against the impugned order dated 31/01/2019. It is the case of the appellants that the appellants were totally unaware about the impugned order which was decided on 31/01/2019. But the record goes to show that the appellants contested the case before the District Commission and the impugned order was passed by the District Commission on contest. So, it can be said that the appellants had full knowledge about the order No. 11 dated 31/01/2019 passed by the Learned District Commission. So, the submission as made by the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. The facts and circumstances of the present case and the facts and circumstances of the above noted rulings are not same and the above noted rulings do not strictly apply in the present case.

6. To adjudicate this issue, I deem it appropriate to refer to section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:—

“15. Appeal.—Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

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

Pro