ORDER (ORAL)

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants.

2. Alongwith the First Appeal, IA 1405 of 2023 has been filed by the Appellants seeking condonation of delay of 958 days.

3. It is stated in the Application that the impugned order is dated 26.05.2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.09.2021 in MA NO.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 in view of the Covid 19 Pandemic directed that in cases where limitation period had expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. The limitation period for the present appeal expired on 02.01.2022. The present Managing Director of the Appellants Partnership Firm, namely, A. Nirmala Devi was diagnosed with cancer and was bedridden. It is prayed that the delay be condoned.

4. We have perused the records carefully.

5. The reasons advanced by the Appellant to justify the delay caused have been considered. The Appellant has contended that Managing Director of the Appellants Partnership Firm, namely, A. Nirmala Devi was diagnosed with cancer and was bedridden and that the limitation period for the present Appeal expired on 02.01.2022 as per order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.09.2021 in MA No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020.

6. 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 because the Appellant dealt with the case in a rather routine and casual manner.

7. 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]

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the settled legal proposition of law of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party. The Appellant has not been able to provide adequate and sufficient reasons which prevented them to approach this Commission within the limitation.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that party who has not acted diligently or remained inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) has also described the test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not and held as under:

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petit