IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sufficient cause – ”Sufficient cause” implies the party must not have acted in a negligent manner or remained inactive. The applicant must satisfy the Court that they were prevented by genuine reasons from prosecuting the case. A Court cannot extend the limitation period on equitable grounds if the statute prescribes a specific period and the delay is not properly explained.
(2) Limitation periods – Special limitation periods prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act are designed to serve the object of expeditious adjudication. Entertaining highly belated appeals defeats this legislative intent.

ORDER

As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 124 days in filing this Second Appeal. Accordingly IA/14763/2025 has been filed by the Appellant seeking Condonation of delay.

2. In the said Application, the learned counsel for the Appellant has stated following grounds for the delay in filing of the instant Appeal:

a. That the delay was caused despite the bona fide attempts of the Appellant, and the Appellant has taken all possible steps to minimize the delay. That very effort was made to expedite the process of filing the appeal once the decision to challenge the Impugned Order was taken.

b. That it took considerable time for the Applicant/Appellant to engage a suitable counsel based in Delhi to represent the Applicant before this Hon’ble Commission. The Applicant/ Appellant is based in Pune, Maharashtra, and the process of 1 SA/830/2025 engaging a competent legal professional in a different city took some time, which contributed to the delay in preparing and filing the appeal before this Hon’ble Commission.

c. Further, it also took substantial time to procure the necessary documents from the earlier counsel who had represented the Applicant/Appellant before the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said counsel was based in Chandigarh, which necessitated extensive coordination and communication across different cities (Pune, Chandigarh, and Delhi).The collection, collation, and transmission of all requisite documents, from the previous counsel to the newly engaged counsel in Delhi, was a time-intensive process, thereby causing further unavoidable delay in the preparation of the appeal.

d. That thereafter, the Appellant/Applicant herein, under a bona fide belief and without any intention to cause delay, filed a Review Petition against the Impugned Order on 12.08.2025. That subsequently, the Ld. Registry of this Hon’ble Commission, on 31.08.2025, raised certain defects in the said Review Petition. The Ld. Registry specifically apprised the Appellant that the Review Petition preferred by the Appellant herein was not maintainable in light of the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Commission in RP/1879/2024. This clarification from the Registry, though necessary, consumed valuable time and caused further delay in approaching this Hon’ble Commission with the instant Appeal, as Applicant/Appellant.

e. That the Applicant/Appellant has a strong prima facie case on merits, and the accompanying Appeal raises substantial questions of law and fact which warrant consideration by this Hon’ble Commission. Denying condonation of delay would result in a grave miscarriage of justice, as the Applicant/ Appellant would be deprived of a valuable opportunity to present their case and seek redressal on technical grounds, without an adjudication on the substantive issues involved.

f. That the procedural technicality of limitation should not be allowed to overshadow the substantive rights of the parties, especially when the delay is neither deliberate nor actuated by mala fide intentions. The Hon’ble Courts have consistently held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering 2 SA/830/2025 applications for condonation of delay, particularly when sufficient cause is shown.

g. That the delay caused was primarily due to the aforementioned genuine reasons and not due to any negligence or dilatory tactics on the part of the Applicant/Appellant. The Applicant/Appellant has no ulterior motive in delaying the filing of the Appeal and is genuinely aggrieved by the Impugned Order.

4. That it was owing to the aforementioned reasons, which were beyond the control of the Applicant/Appellant, that there is a delay of 123 days in filing the instant Appeal before this Hon’ble Commission, which were neither deliberate nor intentional.

3. In the present Second Appeal, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 08.05.2025. The limitation for filing the Second Appeal before this Commission