ORDER

1.       This revision petition has been filed under section 21(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenging the impugned Order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1456 of 2023 arising out from the Order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the District Commission in Complaint No. 78 of 2012.

2.       It appears that a complaint was filed in the District Commission which was allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed before the State Commission but with delay. The appeal filed by the petitioners got dismissed by the State Commission on the point of limitation. The present petition has, therefore, been filed against the impugned Order before this Commission.

3.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the State Commission, the application seeking condonation of delay that was moved before the State Commission in filing the appeal and the memo of petition.

4.       Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the grounds that were pleaded before the State Commission in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

To facilitate better appreciation, it may be apt to quote the grounds made in the affidavit filed before the State Commission in support of the application seeking condonation of delay which reads as below:

I, Jamindar Saroj, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Dev Raj Saroj, R/O A-348, Awas Vikas Colony, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly presently posted as Incharge Branch Manage, the deponent, do hereby solemnly and state on oath as under:

1.         That deponent presently posted Incharge Branch Manager, Sahakari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd., Branch Bareilly and has been   authorized on behalf of the appellant to swear the instant affidavit and is conversant with the facts of the case deposed to herein after

2          That the impugned order was passed on 17.3.2023, and the free copy of the same was issued by by the learned District Commission on 28.3.2023

3.         That after receiving the free certified copy of the impugned order dated 17.3.2023 the counsel conducting the case before the learned "District Commission" send the same to the appellant

4.         That after getting the free copy of the impugned order dated 17 3.2023 the appellant after taking legal advise the decided to challenge the impugned order dated 17.3.2023 before this Commission.

5.         That accordingly instructed the present counsel to file the appeal against the order 17.3.2023.

6.         That in the meantime the free copy of the impugned order 17.3.2023 was misplaced, therefore, the appellant requested to counsel conducting to the case before the learned "District Commission”  to obtain the certified  copy of the order dated 17.3.2023.

7.         That the counsel concerned obtained the certified copy of the order dated
17.3.2023 on 11.8.2023.

8.         That thereafter some more time consumed in preparation of the appeal, and after get prepared the appeal is being field without any further delay.

9.         That delay in filing the present appeal is not intentional or deliberate; rather, is  procedural, as such is liable to be condoned and the present appeal in liable to be hared and decided on merit in the interest of justice.

5.       Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner is a government department and the files move from table to table which also consumed time. Learned counsel has once again reiterated the grounds that were pleaded in the delay condonation application filed before the State Commission and has submitted that this delay being not intentional or deliberate may be condoned. 

6.       It may be observed that in the ordinary course the advisable approach to be adopted in such matters by a judicial or quasi-judicial Forum as the case