ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. Challenge is to the order dated 27.03.2024 of the State Com m ission vide which First Appeal filed by the Appellant herein was dism issed and the order of the District Forum was upheld.

3. SA has been filed with a delay of 487 days as per calculations m ade by the Registry. IA No. 10678 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

4. In order to condone the delay in filing the SA, the Appellant has to satisfy this Com m ission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the SA after the stipulated lim itation period. Hence, today the IA No. 10678 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay was taken up on m erits and learned Counsel for the Appellant was heard on this Application.

5. In the said IA, following reasons for delay / grounds for condonation have been m entioned:

Certified copy of the im pugned order was received in the (a) office of Appellant on 09.04.2024.

(b) After receipt of certified copy of the im pugned order, the sam e was exam ined by the concerned officers of the Appellant G M AD A and the proposed course of action was put up for approval with the departm ent along with docum ents put for the perusal.

(c)

After receipt of com m ents of concerned branches, file was put up for approval of C hief Adm inistrator, G M AD A for filing appeal and then sent to office of Advocate G eneral for engagem ent of panel counsel. Then the Appeal filed.

6. A perusal of the records before us shows that the im pugned order of the State Com m ission was pronounced on 27.03.2024 and the present SA has been filed on 26.08.2025, i.e., after a period of 487 days {after allowing the statutory perm issible period of 30 days).

7. The m ain contention of the Appellant herein is that after receiving the copy of the im pugned order, the com m ents of concerned branches were taken and then the file was put up for approval of Chief Adm inistrator, G M ADA for filing appeal and then sent to office of Advocate G eneral for engagem ent of panel counsel. Then the Appeal filed.

(

8.

The Appellant was well represented before the State Com m ission and was fully aware of the proceedings. Further, if is noted that while filing the SA, the Appellant has not even filed free certified copy of the im pugned order which could have contained the details of the supply of the free certified copy as is required under Regulation 18 and 21 of The Consum er Protection (Consum er Com m ission Procedure) Regulations, 2020.

9.

W e have carefully gone through the reasons for delay / grounds for condonation m entioned in No.10678 of 2025 as well as those adduced during the hearing in the light of observations/decisions of Hon’ble Suprem e Court in various cases. In Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Respresentative and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ann (2023) 10 SCC 531, Hon’ble Suprem e Coqrt observed that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion m ust necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the lengths of delay being im m aterial, each case for condonation of delay based on the )

existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. InBasawarajandAnother.Vs.SpecialLandAcquisitionOfficer(2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Suprem e Court observed that when a case is filed beyond the lim itation period, the applicant m ust dem onstrate "sufficient cause," m eaning an adequate and enough reason for not approaching the court within the prescribed tim e. If the party is found to be negligent, lacking bona tides, or not acting diligently, there is no justified ground for condoning the delay. Courts are not justified in condoning such delays by im posing any conditions and m ust adhere to the established param eters for condonation of delay. Condoning delay without sufficient cause and proper justification would violate statutory provisions and show disregard for legislative intent. InEs