HON’BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL) Present :

Ms. K. Sandhya, proxy counsel for Mr. Amit Punj, counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Kritee Verma and Mr. Neeraj Dwivedi, counsel for the respondent.

PER: HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed on 07.07.2022 challenging the impugned order dated 09.11.2021 vide which CC No.215/2015 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII (South-West) Sec-20, Dwarka, New Delhi-

110077.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.825/2022 seeking condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal.

3. The submissions of either side have been heard and considered.

The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

4. The application has been moved under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.215/2015.

5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.3 to Para No.5 of the application read as under:

“3. That it is submitted that the said order was passed on 09.11.2021 and the copy of the same was received on 25.03.2022.

4. That due to onset of third wave of Covid-19 pandemic, the normalcy of day to day functioning and affairs were severely affected in the legal department of the Appellant organization as most of the staff was directed to work from home. The court summons and notices and orders etc. remained unattended and were mixed by the lower staff with other cases and files.

Thereafter, due to attack of Ransomware virus on the software of the Appellant beginning third week of May, 2022, all its operations were severely affected. Though the said virus is still hampering the day to day operations of the Appellant, however, the Appellant has been able to rectify the system partially.

5. That the aforesaid cumulative affect caused a delay of 50 Days in filing the present appeal.”

6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:-

“Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed.

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

[Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less]”

7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 09.11.2021 and the present appeal was filed on 07.07.2022 i.e. after a delay of 210 days.

8. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as m