IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Limitation – The law of limitation requires delay for each day of delay to be explained after expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) Consumer Fora – The purpose of Section 24-A is to ensure that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as a beneficial legislation are not diluted through challenges which cause cases to be prolonged through litigation even in Consumer Fora
(3) Explanation – It is necessary that this explanation is rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable.
(4) Condonation of delay – The justification for the condonation of delay in the instant case is only an attempt to delay the implementation of an order of the State Commission as there is no evidence brought on record to substantiate the application for consideration.

ORDER (ORAL)

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. Alongwith the Appeal, IA/6564/2024 an application has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 234 days.

3. Appellant submitted that the Appellant was neither aware of the impugned order nor he received free certified copy of the impugned order. It is submitted that when the Appellant got the knowledge of the impugned order, he applied for certified copy of the order which was issued to him by the State Commission after several days. It is submitted that soon after receiving the copy of the impugned order, the Appellant sought advice regarding filing of an Appeal and then assigned the case to counsel to file an Appeal. It is submitted that the delay in filing of the Appeal may be considered as an exception and the same be accepted as in case the same is not accepted, the Appellant will suffer huge loss and irreparable injury.

4. We have perused the record carefully.

5. The reasons advanced by the Appellant to justify the delay caused have been considered. The Appellant has contended that the Appellant was not aware of the impugned order and that he did not receive the free certified copy of the impugned order on time. Further, the Appellant had a good case on merits.

6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Appellant was represented before the State Commission through Counsel. This fact is also not disputed by the Appellant. Such being the case, the Appellant ought to have taken steps on priority to challenge the same on priority at the earliest since the period prescribed for filing an appeal under the Act is 30 days. Another reason given by the Appellant that he received the free copy of the impugned order from the State Commission after several days of applying for the same is also found to be unsubstantiated as the copy was dispatched to him on the same day as per endorsement made on the copy of order of the State Commission. The explanations provided do not explain as to why it took so much time at various stages for him to decide and finalise the appeal since the delay is of 234 days.

7. The law of limitation requires delay for each day of delay to be explained after expiry of the period of limitation. It is necessary that this explanation is rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable. A perusal of the application for the condonation of delay establishes beyond doubt that the delay was caused solely due to the Appellant instead of acting diligently, dealt with the case in a rather routine and casual manner.

8. In State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121 decided on March 20, 2009, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:

“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24 A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder.

12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section24 A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” [Emphasis added]

9. The