ORDER (ORAL)

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Alongwith the First Appeal, IA 10132 of 2022 has been filed by the Appellants seeking condonation of delay of 1453 days.

3. It is stated in the Application that the Appellants are senior citizens (couple) who are non-resident Indians residing at Hungerford, Berkshire in England. The Appellants contacted their family friend, Shri Sanjay Dutta who was a resident of New Delhi, to take help in initiating appropriate proceedings before the State Commission. The said Shri Dutta expired on 21.05.2019. Appellant No.2 was diagnosed with Parkinson disease in September 2020 and his medical condition deteriorated steadily due to various ailments. The Appellants had to execute a Special Power of Attorney. It is prayed that the delay be condoned.

4. We have perused the records carefully.

5. The reasons advanced by the Appellants to justify the delay caused have been considered. The Appellants have contended that Shri Sanjay Dutta whom they requested to initiate the proceedings before the State Commission died of cancer. Appellant No.2 was diagnosed with Parkinsons disease and was suffering from sick sinus syndrome, atrial fibrillation and hypercholesterolemia and the Appellants had to execute a Special Power of Attorney.

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 Appellants chose to deal with local representatives.

7. 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 Appellants

have not been able to provide adequate and sufficient reasons which prevented them to approach this Commission within the limitation.

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 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 petitions stands prop