The present appeal has been filed by the appellant on

16.01.2025 against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi), Vikas Bhawan, M-Block, New Delhi in CC No. 270/2012. There is a delay of 112 days in filing the appeal.

Alongwith the appeal, there is an application i.e. IA-203/25 filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

Therefore, vide this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid application for condonation of delay in the above appeal.

The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on behalf of the Appellant bearing IA No.203/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, inter-

alia, on the following ground:

1. …..

2. That there is no delay in filing the present First Appeal. It is humbly submitted that although the decision in the present case was pronounced on 28.08.2024. The Certified Copy of the Impugned Judgment/ Final Order was dispatched, by the Ld. District Commission but the same was not received by the Appellant. There were two address of the Appellant which were available with the Ld. District Commission. the first address which is 4, Peayrey Lal, 42 Janpath New Delhi-110001 is no longer available as the Appellant has closed down its office in the said location. Therefore, any service made on the said address cannot be considered as valid service. The Second address of Appellant available with the Ld. District Commission is S.C.C No. 41-42-43, Sector-31, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. The Appellant has confirmed from the said branch office that a Free Certified Copy of the Impugned Judgement/ Final Order dated 28.08.2024 was not received by it. (A Copy of the email received by the Appellant from its branch office, Gurgaon confirming that they have not received a Free Certified Copy of the Impugned Judgement/ Final Order dated 28.08.2024 is attached herewith as Annexure A-1/12 at pg. No.240 to

245).

3. That in Housing Board v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Assn., (1995) 5 SCC 672 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the issue of when the limitation period under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would commence has held as under:

“11. From the scheme of the Act it becomes apparent that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted with the object to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers, as a measure for economical and speedy remedy for the settlement of their disputes and matters connected therewith. It is with this object in view that Rule 4 (10) has also been made. It provides for communication of the order of the district Forum to the parties free of charge in order to avoid the delay as well as to save the parties from the burden of expenses that may be incurred for obtaining the certified copy. If the rule itself enjoins a duty for communicating the order of the District Forum duly signed and dated to the parties free of charge, there will hardly be an occasion for the parties to make an application for obtaining a certified copy thereof. Thus, Section 15 of the Act cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read alongwith Rules 4 (10) and 8 (3) of the Rules and a combined reading of Section 15 and the Rules reproduced above gives an impression that the purposes, object and intention of these statutory provisions is to protect the interest of the parties before the District Forum by making it obligatory on the District Forum to provide a copy of the order duly signed and dated by the members of the Bench and the period of limitation prescribed with regard to the filing of an appeal shall be computed as commencing from the date of communication of the order in the manner laid down in sub-rule (10) of the Rule 4.

12. In the facts and circumstances stated above. The date of pronouncement of the order in the open Court by itself cannot be the starting point of determining the period of lim