IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal – Limitation – Law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour and Courts have no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds.

ORDER

The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Parties being aggrieved of the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No.19/2022.

2. This Appeal has been filed with a delay of 570 days as per office report beyond the prescribed period of 30 days.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants on the delay condonation application being IA/14302/2025.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellant is a Government body and approvals at different levels are sought before filing of the Appeal, so, the delay is caused. In this matter also, the delay is procedural delay and it is not intentional or deliberate, hence, the same should be condoned.

5. Considered the submissions made and the reasons given in the Application for condonation of delay.

6. The office has reported that there is a delay of 570 days in filing of this Appeal. The reasons given in the Application is only that the Appellant is a Government body and the delay was caused in seeking approvals at different levels and also that the Appellant has different departments having different branches and it took considerable time that the officers to obtain comments from different branches and deliberate on the issue of filing. He further submitted that the office of Ld. Advocate General, Punjab also took time to engage a panel Counsel. Thereafter, time was taken in preparation and filing.

7. In the considered opinion of this Bench, the reasons given and submissions made are not convincing and sufficient enough to condone such a huge delay of 570 days.

8. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2474 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.7595-96 of 2011) decided on 24.02.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:—

“12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly bids everybody including the Government.”

9. Being a Consumer matter, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Act. This is a Consumer Complaint matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

10. I am relying on the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein, it was held as under:—

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudi