Having examined the order sheets and the other documents on record as well as the pleadings prima facie this was a case relating to medical negligence alleged by the respondents/ complainants against appellant regarding orthopaedic surgery. The delay in the filing of this appeal was condoned on 10.11.2014 and it appears that the respondents/ complainants had also filed FA/735/2017 against the very same impugned order for enhancement of the compensation.

The said appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of delay on 14.02.2023.

The order is extracted herein under:

“The present Appeal has been filed in the year 2017 against the order dated 01.08.2012 of the State Commission. The Appeal since been delayed for more than 4 years, an application IA No. 6165 of 2017 has been moved seeking condonation of delay.

IA No. 6165 of 2017 ( condonation of delay)

1. Arguments on this application are heard.

2. It is settled proposition of law that party seeking condonation of delay needs to explain the delay of each and every date and of such nature which were beyond its control and which prevented him / her to approach the Court for filing the Appeal. In this application, no ground except that Appellant had been unwell has been disclosed.

3. It is settled law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The person who is seeking condonation of delay has to show the reasonable cause which prevented him / her from filing the appeal / revision within the period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under:

“12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

4. In case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: "5. We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

5. In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that special nature of period of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with such applications.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora."

6. It is not disputed fact that respondents had filed FA No. 34 of 2013 in the year 2013 and the applicant (s) have been attending the said Appeal since the year 2013 itself. When the appellants of the present Appeal were in positi