Consumer forums should prioritize substantive justice over technical dismissals and can condone delays in filing complaints if sufficient cause is demonstrated.

1. The Appellant has filed this appeal under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.5.2022 passed by the Learned District Commission Ahmedabad (Additional) in consumer complaint No. 680/2017.

2. Heard the Appellant, party in person and Ld. Advocate Mr. V. M. Pancholi for the Respondents.

3. Order under challenge:
"(Hindi matter omitted)"

4. Facts of the case: It is a case of the complainant that HDFC credit card division, had Charged Usurious finance charges, + GST on short payment, though minimum amount due was paid in time. The usurious finance charges are interest in other words. The complainant had approached Reserve Bank of India (banking ombudsman) in August 2017, but nothing happened and the issue remained unresolved. The complainant filed Consumer Case No. 680/2017 before the Ld. District Commission. The complainant had quoted oneway business attitude by giving one example that refund from Snapdeal of the Lenova laptop for Rs. 36,490 was received by the complainant on 10th June 2015, duly processed by the Snapdeal in HDFC bank account. The complainant followed up with the bank several times on phone, but did not got the credit of the said amount in the bill statement of the Bank dated 25.6.2015. The Bank denied any refund of the same, though the Snapdeal reference UTR number was given. The refund appeared with the back date of 17/06/2015 in the statement of 25/07/2015. There was a delay of 39 days in crediting the refund to the account of the complainant. Those 39 days delay was not compensated with interest, though there was a RBI circular, in regard to uniformity in penal interest payable by bank. The opposing party appeared before the Ld. District Commission and raised its objections. The opponents raised preliminary objection regarding delay in filing the consumer complaint. By considering the preliminary objection of the opponents the Ld. District Commission observed that the complainant has claimed 40 days interest from the date 10.6.2015. Hence the consumer complaint is required to be filed on or before 10.6.2017. The complaint was filed on 16.8.2017. Therefore, there is a delay of about two months in filing the complaint. The complainant gave an application for condonation of delay in pending consumer complaint before the Ld. District Commission. The application was kept for hearing, along with the main complaint. The Ld. District Commission finally decided the complaint on the ground of delay in filing the complaint without appreciating the pending application for condonation of delay vide its order dated 23.5.2022. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the complainant has preferred the present appeal.

5. Argument of the Appellant: The appellant appeared party in person and argued out his case and submitted that the Ld. District Commission has misread and misconstrued the averments in the complaint. The Ld. District Commission has failed to appreciate that the main grievance of the complainant was for the exorbitant charges levied by HDFC bank credit card division and unnecessarily made Snapdeal refund the main subject, though it was just for an example. The Ld. District Commission has considered the delay, only on the part of the complainant and did not take cognizance of S.13 of the CP Act, 2019 and delay in filing the written statement by the opponents. The complaint was filed on 16th of August 2017 and reply filed by the opponents on 3rd of March 2018, i.e. after delay of almost 195 days, which is against the provisions of law that reply should be filed within 45 days from the receipt of