JUDGMENT

Both these writ petitions were submitted by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by which the appeals submitted by the petitioner were rejected on the reason that, the petitioner failed to explain the delay in filing appeal. In both these writ petitions, the 1^st respondent has approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by filing complaints in the year 2015, being aggrieved by the failure on the part of the petitioner in returning the fixed deposits made by them. In both cases, the District Commission passed orders, copies of which are produced as Exts.P3 in both the writ petitions, by which, the amounts deposited by them were directed to be returned along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and a further amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded as cost and compensation.

2. The petitioner submitted appeals against Ext.P3 order before the State Commission, along with an application to condone the delay of 825 days. The reason stated by the petition